For some time, I had been wondering why there are zillions of ways of navigation on WikiProject Pakistan. One being the template on the right hand side of each and every page, second the big chunky tabs on the top of each and every page. Frankly, that's just too verbose a navigation. We should just revamp the pages without the tabs. I know that some Wikipedians would argue that the tabs are useful enough to navigate quickly to the resource required, but I differ on that. Note that none of the other WikiProjects have tabs. I remember the first time I saw this WikiProject, I was clueless as to what the tabs did. It just adds confusion to the whole easy-to-use user interface that Wikipedia already provides. I think we should stick to standards and not use the tabs. If there are no comments, I might chuck the tabs in a week's time. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see any problem with tabs as long as they link up to key pages. Recently I resolved some confused links in between. There is nothing wrong in having a unique interface. It's much better than having to port code. Let's see what other editors say. It’s good to see you diligently improving lots of content here. Just make sure that all changes are consistent. And keep it up.--IslesCapeTalk16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If we were to keep the tabs, I would say we make them into a template like {{WP Pakistan Tab Navigation}} so that only one line can be added to the top of the page rather than all that bulky code and that one change can make tabs on all the other pages available as changed. That'd surely make life easier for the lot of us. By the way, I removed the to do list from the {{WP Pakistan Navigation}} because of the template loop that occurred. I would suggest that the main page of the project be as the community portal main page. All your suggestions are welcome and I will include them in here. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created the above-mentioned template ({{WP Pakistan Tab Navigation}}edit) and it's up on all the pages now. Check to see if it works for you and tell me if I should get rid of the previous code that I now have commented inside the template code somewhere. I have removed all other stuff around the template and it seems to work fine. Please report if you are having troubles with it. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
To me all tabs are appearing in separate lines (i.e. not continuous as tabs in one line). could be a browser issue.--IslesCapeTalk08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The tabs works on the Firefox 3 Beta 5, but I will make it so that it is understood on others. The tabs use complicated CSS 2.0 (i.e., display:table-cell) and Wiki parse functions. If your browser doesn't support them, you don't see them. I will add backward compatibility as well in the case that no one has the latest browsers. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have included an updated version of the tab navigation. It has a smaller font and is in more robust tabular form. Please check to see if your respective browsers are behaving well with this change. It still uses the new functionalities that were added in the previous attempts but also lags on to older technologies. The rounded border functionality is exclusive to Firefox only. The use of parser functions was enhanced slightly with the newly added #ifeq constructs. I have given it enough time to see that it works on Mozilla Firefox (2.x, 3b5) and Internet Explorer (7, 6). I need help on Opera, SeaMonkey, Netscape and Safari. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is looking better than before, but still one tab (i.e. New Articles ) is out of proportion in size, may be only my browser still is not showing it correctly. --SMSTalk17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the issue. It's just a matter of changing the size of the enclosing table-cell. Fixed it, but I'd rather wait to see what the others are saying about it. I also saw that you have modifying content on the members page which I really appreciate. Keep up the good work. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I slightly reduced tabs' width as they seemed to be going out of standard WP screen on IE. Hope it works for other browsers as well.--IslesCapeTalk15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What about having B - class criteria in the talk page banner of the project, like many other project at Wikipedia already have. It will give editor some information about what is missing from the article. And we can have assessment drives to update these check lists after some time. Any ideas? --SMSTalk17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a particularly good option. I would suggest that you go ahead with the changes as long as no one else comments here for a while. Hopefully that'd be in the betterment of the project. However, I'd suggest that you give an example of what you just explained. In other words, can you give an example of a project using the talk page banner. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of get what you mean. Is it the list of criteria that is listed when you expand the template and you see lots of checks. If you are saying so, then I think that's a good idea. Oh, by the way, I changed the tab template. Check for bugs. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work with the nav bar uptil now, it is commendable, that someone is here to make this project active. We will also need your help in adding B - class criteria in the talk page banner after community consensus. --SMSTalk17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Work started on the template. I have started the work on the {{WP Pakistan}} criterion list. Please suggest the criteria list for both A-class and B-class. At the moment, I haven't delved deep into the semantics of using the additional information for specifically these two classes. The collapsible bar shows nevertheless for whatever is there. I will fix it in later versions. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the template so that if you include the class=B, you get an options list where you can use B-Class-1=yes|no, B-Class-2=yes|no, B-Class-3=yes|no, B-Class-4=yes|no and B-Class-5=yes|no for the criteria to be resolved. Give me your verdict on this. Remember, the talk pages where the template already exists need to be saved again to view this template. For an example check this page. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The B - class criteria list what i think should include(as followed in other projects)
Article is properly cited.
Article has one or more sections including LEAD.
Article is comprehensive.
Article includes some graphics(i.e. Pictures or Infoboxes)
Article is free of grammatical errors.
The above all points must be met by an article to be rated as B - class, but if any one the above criteria is crossed, the article can be a Start class. And for GA, A and FA ratings, some other parameter can be added as I think these ratings can't be given by us, there is a process to promote an article to these ratings. --SMSTalk17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have completed the task at hand but there are some minor differences from the template provided to me by Smsarmad (talk·contribs). The template has B-class criteria that has a collapsible box and criterion listing available. However, what's missing at this moment is the functionality of stating the article a Start article if all five criteria are not met. In other talk page banners, if all the criteria for B-class aren't met, the article is termed a Start-Class article rather than a B-Class article. I would surely be working on it today. Problem is that at the time of writing there are 183 articles ranked in the B-Class and for none is the criteria list met. If I were to term those as Starts, the number would decrease dramatically. That's where that community consensus would come handy ;). Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If the number of B - class articles are reduced by introducing this criteria, I think we should still move on, because quality is the main thing and we should not comprise on it. We can improve the demoted articles on the basis of this criteria list. --SMSTalk17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have included the new functionality. Now all the articles that have uncompleted B-Class criteria are demoted to a Start-Class status. Hopefully by the end of the day, all the articles would end up in the Start-Class Pakistan articles. Let's hope we can fix some if not all by then. Try out the new updates and come back. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I ran the WP 1.0 bot last night and the assumptions it came up with demoted 163 articles to Start-Class status while only 20 were left in the glory of B-Class. Not sure why these were left-out. The last I checked, the articles in the category were only 11. So, I presume, it will be a matter of another day that we might have proper deductible references to the estimate damage ;) we've caused by demoting those articles. Any way, I will surely be checking content myself personally for most of the B-Class that had been demoted to understand how I can sum the numbers back to their lost class. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! for all this work its looking fine now, and I am really sorry for late response(I was a little bit busy in real life). I think we can reassess all the start class articles so if some of them are missing B - class we can promote them. --SMSTalk19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up the Islamabad article and moved the long list of places to List of Notable Places in Islamabad. The new list fairly underdeveloped and could use some copy editing to make it look better. I'm not from Islamabad so I cannot add a lot of valuable information to it. I would welcome anyone who could contribute to the article to make it more meaningful. Otherwise I would put it up for deletion after a few days. UzEE05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have classified the article as a list article and have declared its importance as mid. Recently enough, the article on List of Pakistanis was nominated for deletion and that was just because it had importance set to high/top. Furthermore, your article had been declared a stub. As this topic in all its true nature serves the purpose not of an article but of a list, it's class should be list. As long as you don't have many red links there, everything should be fine. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 06:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Could an Urdu-speaking editor kindly see if any sources can be found for Devta? It sounds as though it may be notable as an extremely long-running story, but English-language sources are pretty much non-existent. Jfire (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried googling online and did not find anything of worth. However, I did come to know that Devta is the longest running story ever and that Mohiuddin has written several other stories. Try searching for Mohiuddin Nawab and you might come up with something. Request for help if you need the article to be expanded. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I was just doing some cleanup on 139/RB-Ghammi chattha and wanted to make sure that I was not changing the meaning by changing the grammar. Could someone please check over my edits?
I also wanted to check before making too large a change in the Health section. Would the following be accurate?
In 1988, the Punjab government established the Dehi Markaz hospital which has 10 beds.
Thanks for bringing this talk back to life. You know for some time I had been thinking of creating a task force that deals with the field of medicine in Pakistan. A place where we can create templates for Pakistani hospitals, e.g., a {{Infobox Hospital Pakistan}} template. This task force may deal with various epidemics and diseases like AIDS and issues surrounding their awareness in Pakistan. I know lots of doctors including my parents who regularly check Wikipedia. Lets do them a favour. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles that have been created or expanded in the last 5 days are eligible for Main Page inclusion at Template:Did you know, so if you find an interesting fact in any of these articles, you can nominate it at Template talk:Did you know. Another place to list interesting facts from new articles is at Portal:Pakistan/DYK
For some time, I have taken care of the Hyderabad article and I feel like I have a strange attachment to it. While editing the article today, I came up with an idea I'd called Adopt-an-Article. It goes by saying that a user is required to adopt an article and see after its growth. The more articles a user can adopt the better. This way that one user can review the article every time a change is made and act accordingly. If things are done this way, we may be assured that more good articles and featured content would be produced efficiently. Would you agree to it or should it just be left untended inside the closet? Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this with accordance to a recent change on the WikiProject India. They started a thing called Adopt-a-Category where a user would adopt a category and look after it in such a way that they manage all the links present under the category to be relevant to the category, but I thought that the Article Adoption may prove a step further where you actually copy edit content to make it more readable and accurate. I would most definitely add the Article Adoption to the navigation on the right where anyone can access and start adopting articles. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good Idea, but it should be made sure that adoption should not lead to ownership, that will defy the Wiki policies. --SMSTalk17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Adoptions as I think should only be to the point of administrating an article where the person adopting the article would tend to look for NPOV violations, non-wikified text and so forth. And yes, multiple people can adopt the same article. I'd give you a little idea. For instance, I have been taking care of this project and its talk pages and introducing newer concepts like archiving boxes and others while keeping in mind that other's need to have their say on what they want to be done. I believe adoptions should be a similar case. Nevertheless I will make an option for adoption available and let's give it a chance. If the whole thing just wouldn't work, we can look at the other options. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! any update regarding adoption, I can't see any article adopted on the category page. Plus, Arun! can you format the adoption tag as left aligned and also make it more smaller in width. --SMSTalk17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No objections. It would be better if all the pages are tagged as that'd include friendly and helpful UI to newcomers. I would surely appreciate that. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I could not get what do you mean by reviewing the criteria. And yes it can auto classify stubs. --SMSTalk16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
During tagging some editors complained that the bot has tagged wrong articles, when I checked, there claim was totally true. Actually I am tagging articles in Category:Pakistan and it's sub categories, for example, Category:Urdu-language films, which includes many Indian movies, is a sub category of Category:Cinema of Pakistan and further a sub category of Category:Pakistan, so during tagging many Indian movies were tagged in WikiProject Pakistan. So, I think some re-categorization is needed of these articles. I have currently stopped the tagging until some suggestions regarding this issue are received. --SMSTalk17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Reconsidering awards
Recently enough, I was looking through archived messages here and came across a proposal for Pakistani barn stars. Read through the proposal and comment here what we should be doing with the awarding schemes on WP Pakistan. Your suggestions are really valuable and would help us organize awarding schemes on this project. Any ideas would be rewarded with gratitude. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Szhaider (talk·contribs) created these two barn stars (on the right) but they were never proposed for official awarding purposes. Shall we include them in the project. Click on the two barn star images on the right to view them in their full details. Would you like to have them up at the project page? Or are you good enough to make us proud by making your own and presenting it here? We would really like to hear from you. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good idea, I think a major reorganization of the project is much needed, we should restructure the departments, so there can be an Effort Recognition Department or Award department which can deal with this. --SMSTalk17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Have spent the last few days in editing controversial articles for DYK. Although, just for an update, I created a recognition department where we can discuss what awarding schemes need to be established. Hope you guys would come up with some decent ideas. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we do need barnstars to recognize editors who are doing good work on Pakistan-related articles. I think those two barnstars are pretty nice looking and should be officially adopted. --Zaindy٨٧11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to award editors. I think that the barn stars will also help us keep track of the credibility of editors. I am assuming that currently the two barn stars will be awarded for effort and achievement. May be the awards system could be more categorised, which will help us to recognise work in a more efficient manner. SholeemGriffin (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Restructuring Departments of Project
I propose the restructuring of the departments of this project, please give your ideas. I think the the project should include these departments:
Assessment (for formal assessment of articles)
Outreach (for welcoming newbies and asking editors to join the project)
Review (for formal review of articles)
Logistic (for formal requests of Copy editing or any request related to images or supporting material)
Recognition (for recognizing efforts of users and giving awards officially)
Contest & Drive (the dept. which will manage any drives or contest held for the improvemnt of articles)
Other thing we can have coordinators elected for the better management of the project after we gather some inactive members of this project. Any suggestions? --SMSTalk17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We currently already have the following departments (some of which are mentioned in the list above):
Assessment (as you mentioned; needs a group of editors to look after it)
Automation (no idea what this department does; maybe you can help SMS)
Cartography (this is a concept I seem to have come across on other WikiProjects for the betterment of geographic understanding by creating and manipulating maps)
Collaboration (where you say Contest and Drive; this is where can hold these contests)
Outreach (as you mentioned)
Peer reviews (as you mentioned again)
Photography (a department to tag articles with Pakistan-related pictures)
Translation (a collaborative drive to translate content from other languages to English Wikipedia or the Urdu one)
Vandalism (aah, this one is wicked)
The departments we are missing may include Recognition and Logistic (which I am sure can fit somewhere else). Let's see what others have to say about the awards proposals and we can put those thoughts towards the Recognition department. I think most of the departments can generalised and restructured. Let's see what others have to say. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, the fewer departments the better, as visitors and editors may find it hard to locate the right place for queries etc.
This also brings up the issue of redirecting all Talk pages to the main project's page. May cause occasional clutter, but at least we'll have all in one place.
I didn't understand the thing about redirection of all the talk pages to this one but then again it's a good thing that everything is kept in the same place. I will try to reduce the number of departments. Check back later for changes. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have started making the page for Logistics department here, you people can help and latter move it to its project page. --SMSTalk16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read through the article and have removed over-referencing and -linking and have checked against two of the B-Class criteria in the {{WP Pakistan}} template. If you don't know by now the B-Class criterion list introduced on 2008-05-02 has to be filled for the article to be truly B-Class. Even though your article is B-Class, it still doesn't meet the complete criteria list. Check the Additional Information section in the talk page banner template. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not "overreferencing". I have used references for each and every sentence because it needed for FA status. It is simply use of reference per sentence. You can use a reference for supporting a paragraph, it is generally good to provide ref for every single sentence. It will be useful in featured article nomination. To use reference sentence by sentence is the best practice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the sentences in the article within a single paragraph is referenced from a single book, but from different pages. To cite every sentence, it becomes easy for the reader to understand from which page the information came. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Having sentences like: Sentence with a particular reference.[1] And, another with the same reference.[1] And then, another.[1]
This goes against the rule-of-thumb as I mentioned and can be corrected by: Sentence with a particular reference. And, another with the same reference. And then, another.[1]
I think the latter practice is a better alternative. Only the citations that occurred as same in three or more consecutive sentences, I gathered at the end of the sentences. Not all are put at the end of the paragraphs. I hope you grasp my meaning and hope you don't have problems with that. Do reply. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's put this page for other editors to see and if they deem necessary make it aptly punctuated with citations. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, rule-of-thumb does not specify any particular guideline. I have only used it so that the reader can understand from where the sentence is taken. Using the reference at the end of the paragraph is often confusing, clarification for each sentence is better. And if you use reference for every single sentence, it will not prohibit your article to become FA. Hope you will understand my reasoning. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say but the over-citing in the article leads to a clutter. I apologise if my concerns seem to bother you. Let's have others decide. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion and voting for the creation of a new task force for the Military of Pakistan at WikiProject Military History is going on here. Anyone can participate in the discussion whereas voting can be done only by the members of WikiProject Military History, if you want to be a member add your name here. Another info that currently about 546 articles related to Military of Pakistan on Wikipedia. --SMSTalk03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the verdict so far. Was there a Pakistan TF formed or not. Please update us on it. Although, I am not much into military stuff, I feel that there certainly is a need for that. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see this archived complaint. I allowed this to be archived before bringing it up here as I didn't want the same sort of reaction that is unfortunately common regarding Eastern Europe and other similar topics on the admin noticeboards - and I also feel that the majority of en-WP admins and editors do not have sufficient knowledge in these subjects to make judgements on the accusations of "vandalism". I hereby bring this matter to the attention of this WikiProject, who I assume to have both the knowledge and the neutrality to assess these claims.
Should it be found that admin intervention is required, and that no such admin can be found or is willing to act (since there is no need to escalate potential conflict) within the project, please feel free to contact me again - or any other help as required. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This claim so far is useless for the following reasons:
Not all Pakistani users on Wikipedia as Sunni Muslims (including me some are Christians and Hindus alike) [This is racism].
No topics other than just a few had been modified,[1][2] mostly were anonymous comments.
I would suggest that these topics be semi-protected but, to be honest, I would only settle with one thing: we should have "religion preferences" in the infobox and there should be no sectarianism there. For one, Shi'a and Sunni sects and both considered Muslims in the country whereas I would not be sure if Pakistan recognises Ahmadis or Qadyanis are Muslims. One should take example from the Church of Pakistan where all the sects, e.g., Protestants and Catholics are regarded as one and if any such conflict occurs, they are just termed as Christians rather than naming their sec
Plus, I would say that if there are more than 5 sources saying that a person is either Shi'a or Sunni, they should not express the religious sect there (although that is not even necessary in that case). Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of points; I didn't bring this here to promote a division, but to resolve a potential one. I do not even know if it is as important within Pakistan that an individual is identified as either Sh'itte or Sunni as it may be to be identified as Catholic or Protestant in certain parts of Europe. If it is not an important aspect of Pakistani culture then perhaps the Project should discuss a guideline that it should not be included in a subjects article unless the subject is directly related to that sect (i.e. holds a religious office). I would also gently suggest that denigrating people by sect is not racism, but sectarianism. I despair that humans are so willing to use labels on other humans as a way of demeaning them, but I would prefer if the correct "labels" were applied.
If there are articles that require protecting (and as editors involved are long standing, this would need to be full protection - so only admins can edit under certain conditions) then I would be willing to do so as soon as there is consensus. In the more delicate matter of sanctioning individuals, I again would be prepared to act upon consensus - providing that serious efforts had already been made to resolve issues, which had failed to achieve their goals. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad edits have only come of anonymous users hence I suggested semi-protection. I do agree that religious sectarianism and preferences should only be required for any biographical article for a person that is related directly to a sect (or religious office). I think Pakistani biographical infoboxes should be made with null sect space and only general religions be allowed, like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. We will gather members and talk on this matter in the near future. For the moment please semi-protect the pages you were notified of (to limit anon edits) and we will publish the result of our findings here. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As this talk had been archived on the admin's page, I'd like members to know what was happening. The edits as mentioned here were done on four different articles, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Ayub Khan regarding their religious orientation. The edit war started when the infobox field for religion usually stating Islam was later changed to Shia Islam. These wars included two anonymous (77.42.190.154 and 77.42.187.213) edits as the case here and a user LahoreKid (talk·contribs) was involved as per the case here. The NPOV tag was also removed from some pages. User Smsarmad (talk·contribs) would then revert the changes made to the religion field back to Islam (notSunni Islam) upon which these changes were termed vandalism as per my knowledge since I checked all the edits and talked to the user myself. The user LahoreKid (talk·contribs) would then state this as sectarianism and state the the changes were made from the actual Shi'a sect (which was not cited even) to the Sunni sect.
Now the term Islam encompasses both Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and where a person's religious sect is ambiguous, only Islam should be used. If no user comes and expresses concern the Infobox template would be changed to allow generic religions as hard-coded and not sects. If Sunni or Shia Islam is provided, it'd automatically be converted to plain Islam. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it all started when this anon changed Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam in all the articles mentioned above, which have always stated, despite some vandalism, that the people in question are Shi'a Muslims. User:Smsarmad and some others then moved to revert them back to Sunni Islam and, after many sources were provided, User:Smsarmad and User:WWGB removed the Shi'a part and argued, like you, that Shi'a is the denomination and not the religion, despite the fact that in almost every other biography article in Wikipedia, as I assume you already know, the denomination is mentioned, and most of the time, only the denomination is mentioned.
I think it is very sad that after a long edit war, after many sources were provided for these articles and after it became obvious that users involved in removing the reference to Shi'ism in these articles did so because of deeply-rooted animosity towards it and its adherents, someone likes you decides to bring the issue up again.
Concerning the importance of stating the denomination, it would be safe to say that sectarianism is stronger in the Middle East, and Pakistan in particular, than in any part of the world (see Sunni-Shia_relations#Pakistan and Sectarian violence in Pakistan). Saying otherwise would be an attempt by some to use Western editors' lack of knowledge about Middle Eastern politics to remove references to Shi'ism because as witnessed, it is unbearable by Sunnis (who form the majority in Pakistan) to admit that the founder of their nation and some of its most popular politicians are Shi'a Muslims, whom most regard as heretics. LahoreKid (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself are saying
... users involved in removing the reference to Shi'ism in these articles did so because of deeply-rooted animosity ..
.. and that ...
.. sectarianism is stronger in the Middle East, and Pakistan in particular, than in any part of the world ...
.. having edit wars on pages regarding to this very sentimentality towards sectarianism is in fact deepening the ideology. I know I am Pakistani and have seen several instances of this animosity amongst people but Wikipedia doesn't know any boundaries, LahoreKid and neither should it be polluted with this point-of-view. I sympathise with what you are saying, but what I say in return is that, we need to make articles related to Pakistan as edit war-free zone as possible.
Take the example of Abdus Salam. He was the only scientist worth proclaiming in Pakistan, but just because of this very pro-sectarian thought, he is mentioned for just one line in our text books. Can we just not have the religion as Islam so that the character of the person is more celebrated than his religion. Claiming that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was a Shi'a muslim is good but does it mean that he was adherent to his sect. No! He was a drunkard and he publicly proclaimed that. Does that mean he was a kafir as well. Should we have a sect of kufaar as well. Dear, what I think is, we should get rid of the religion-based sectarian information and just go with the generic field for religion at least in the infobox. Elsewhere in the article you can define the religious following of the person in a line or two with a good fact. Bhutto's quote was:
Yes I do drink wine ... but at least I don't drink the people's blood![1] Bhutto accusing the religo-political leaders of "drinking" the peoples blood
Shouldn't we learn a lesson from this quote. Don't be religo-political.
My aim is not to humiliate you here. In fact, I appreciate your edits and I have seen that wherever you placed Shia Islam in the infobox, you provided a citation. But, a citation isn't enough. We need to get rid of this so-called deeply-rooted animosity now. Don't you agree? Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
By removing references to Shiism, you wouldn't be getting rid of the deeply-rooted animosity, you would be appeasing those who have it. Drinking wine doesn't mean one is not a Shi'a Muslim, and I'm sure you know that. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was a Shi'a Muslim and defined himself as such. Catholicism, like all religions, doesn't allow premarital sex, but does that mean that Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, is an infidel and the religion field in his infobox should define him as one?
Frankly, I question your intentions, and it was disturbing for me to see you lie, intentionally, when you stated that the edit war started when two anons changed the religion field in the articles from Islam to Shi'a Islam, when in reality, as I'm sure you and User:Smsarmad already know, it started with these edits, 12 and 3, by this anon. Again, I ask you not to undermine my efforts. I have spent too much time fighting the ill-intentioned edits of many editors, especially User:Smsarmad, and I thought this issue was resolved. Now let it go because way too many sources were provided and, really, this is becoming irritating. LahoreKid (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I never lied; please read again. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the edits on Yousaf Raza Gillani and Asif Ali Zardari but I knew of the other pages which I mentioned in the debate. My evaluations were resulted from the articles that I mentioned. Don't obscure the facts, LahoreKid. But now that you have mentioned, I will keep an eye on those as well. And yes, there is no need to be aggressive about this. The whole purpose of the debate is to come to a certain result not to beat around the bush. While I see that the original edits were made by 81.149.22.123 as you state, I never checked the articles you mentioned not being aware of it.
Even when Smsarmad reverted them in good faith to keep it neutral, why would you not go with a general, liberal attitude. If Smsarmad ever changed them, it was for the purpose of bringing neutrality to the articles. Here, I just state this one issue surrounding the sectarianism in Pakistani articles in general. French do not have your versions of sectarian animosities, either in their country or on the articles on Wikipedia related to them. I think, if it's about a Pakistani article, we should all keep that sectarian piece of mind at home. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new on the WikiProject Pakistan and I came across this debate. I would like to stress that sectarianism in Pakistan related articles is not good practice since it undermines the actual point of the article due to unnecessary discussions. Just stop it please because ultimately an individuals religious inclinations, once they are a part of politics, become undefined. SholeemGriffin (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Smsarmad never acted in good faith. You keep insisting that what he did was change the religion field from Shi'a Islam to Islam, thinking that no one would bother to check what he actually did. These edits 1, 2, and removing sources that state that the politicians in question are Shi'a Muslims are not acting in good faith, but this is not the issue here. First, the problem was proving that they are Shi'a Muslims, which I did by providing an unnecessary amount of sources and now, another editor popped out arguing that the denomination shouldn't be mentioned at all. You make a pretty weak case because not only does every biographical article in Wikipedia mention the denomination, but in Pakistan in particular, one's sect defines how one is perceived by society, especially the majority, and this is especially the case with politicians, and it can be seen clearly through the sectarian violence. LahoreKid (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My friend, I am just managing this debate. But gathering your statements and of the others, I feel I should propose certain rules here now. You are free to oppose and I would like others to participate. After a while, these might become concrete rules and policies for WikiProject Pakistan and all articles it encompasses. Of all the facts I have heard so far, following are the most importance ramifications of many more:
NPOV references are required for sect labels Religious sects should be stated for biographical articles where there are more than one proper citations (the citations themselves need to be of a neutral view).
Should be discussed on the respective article's talk page first In case of a NPOV dispute, the situation needs to be addressed on the talk page of the article. Given enough time, the talks should be summarised with the WikiProject Pakistan (hereafter used as WP Pakistan). Whatever the outcome yielded, shall be the result.
Unresolved sectarian disputes If the dispute isn't resolved within a period of time on the article's talk page or the WP Pakistan talk page, the label for religious sect should be excluded and Islam should be used while matters continue to be discussed upon.
Articles content over subject's religious inclination As our present targets are to submit as many articles as possible to the WP Version 1.0, the main content (biography) holds more value than the religious inclination and the sectarianism should be suppressed till a requested period in time.
Controversial anonymous edits If an anonymous edit holds controversy, and is reported on WP Pakistan, the changes may be reverted to the last user's contribution. If they persist, the page would be submitted to an admin to be semi-protected. There is no need to completely protect it from everyone.
These rules, if unopposed, would be added into the official policies of WikiProject Pakistan. Please support or oppose by placing your comment underneath the rules if you oppose them. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think all the sectarian info from the Pakistani pages must be removed. Unless and until the person, whose article is in question, himself or herself declared his/her denomination in public. Ayub Khan and Muhammad Ali Jinnah never declared their denominations in public so their sectarian description in their pages must be removed. Misaq Rabab (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea of removing the denomination from a biographical article is ridiculous, because as long as it is known, it should be included. LahoreKid (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think if information is from reliable sources, properly referenced/cited, and is written in npov, then there is no problem in including that. Also, any vote above can't overturn WP:V, WP:RS etc. --Ragib (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think these apply even as the citation used in the above articles was for a certain book that was written from a pro-Shi'ite conceptualisation. It's like saying that Jinnah has his birthday changed to 25th December so that people have a reason to celebrate Jesus' birthday. That's one of the Christian sentiments in Pakistan. I think more than one citations or references is required for a certain label for religion. Otherwise, if it violates NPOV, it would be removed to include generality. And no, the WP:V, and WP:RS can be overturned with specific votes that make a topic for specific. The mentioned concepts are more generic. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was the use of reliable sources. For example, if a well known and scholarly biography of Jinnah mentions his sect, then that citation can be used. Trivial/passing mentions about Jinnah's sect in other publications are not as strong as an authorized biography of Jinnah mentioning his sectarian affiliations. If such a ref from a reliable bio of Jinnah is provided, then I see no reason to remove any details. On the other hand, if the reference is from a non-bio publication with a different topic, as you mentioned above, then I'd suggest against using it to justify sect affiliation tags. --Ragib (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right Ragib. I just think that for controversial issues, we need to have more than one reliable sources backing up the claim. This would mean that the data claimed of in the religion field is extremely reliable. User LahoreKid was kind enough to provide one reference but the reference should be supported (seconded) by another extremely reliable source/citation. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, neither of you two can decide what is a reliable source and what is not. For that, you need to see WP:Reliable sources, which says that books by respected scholars and articles in major news organizations are more than reliable, so I don't have to dig up biographies of Jinnah to prove that he was a Shi'a Muslim. Also, only one reliable source should be needed if the content of the article is disputed. Note to Arunreginald: the book by Vali Nasr is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards and I hope you could put your sectarianism aside and stop contesting that Jinnah was in fact a Shi'i Muslim. LahoreKid (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please LahoreKid, I wasn't even contesting that Jinnah is not shia or that he is (and you need to read completely to know what I was discussing). I was making some other point which Ragib actually answered with extremely well-presented words (unlike you). And now that I know what user Ragib actually wanted, I feel your statement wasn't needed at all. Thanks for it though. Please read the talks completely and then state your reply. As far as user WWGB is concerned, I have my eyes on him/her. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean to say as Urdu couplet: 'Naam budnaam hooya to kya hooya --Naam to hoyaa (Having bad reputation also made me famous). You and LahoreKid are creating havoc in Pakistan related articles. This unnecessary controversy is resulting in time wasted for many Pakistani Wikipedians. May be you two should join Muxlim, a new social networking website for Muslims. and find respective lifemates of appropriate sect and sex (gender) (Just joking!!!). Misaq Rabab (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you guys are arguing about but it is really pathetic if its over religion. Will being a Sunni or Shia change anything about the person?
Neutral Comment I have been watching the name calling and accuations being thrown out. Might I remind you guys that when you verbally attack someone, your causing a negative light on our Project members. We are all here to expand the information on Pakistan and not argue about the sects in Islam (because the I think that has divided Islam far enough).Anyways just remember be nice towards others here. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well i would like to add my concern here that,As we know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia hence we should mention what ever is based on facts and reality.So,the reality is this that the Entire Bhutto Family is a Shia-Muslim Family but people some who quote distorted and un-conformed Facts about them being Sunnis or something else.Thats wrong,if some thinks that Mentioning some ones Religous beliefs is wrong and is a cause of spreading Sectarianism,then i would inform him that he is very wrong.The Facts should be mentioned weather if it seems bitter to some on else.And no one edits the articles of any Sunni-Leader, it is always the Shia Leader continuously being Edited by some Anti-Shia sentiment people.
So this has to stop at once and it should be clearly mentioned in the article and info about that Leader.With the reason that they do are some false statements about Benazir and Quaid-e-Azam not being Shia,although it is proved that they both are 100% Shia-Muslims,but still some people are able to distort the facts by mentioning the false story and statements against them.So this should stop at once,let take the Facts as Info and not as Sectarian Hate or so!Thanks.
Paki90 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Pakistani Categories
I have noticed that some people routinely insert the word India and Hinduism into many issues that have nothing to do with them particularly in reference to articles related to Pakistan. I have also noticed that in many articles in question the category Category:History of Pakistan has been deliberately replaced by Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. I don't find the categories for Pre-Christan heritage of Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, etc. Their historical articles fall in their respective history categories. The Category:Hindu history and Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia were probably a mistake I will go back and check my changes. The Muslim heritage places in India such as Bareilly, where Barelwi sect was formed which is followed by 50% of Pakistani Muslims or Deoband of Deobandi sect, and Ajmer which is the biggest Muslim pilgrame site in India of Moinuddin Chishti does not have any Muslim tags. Actually I support this since cities should not have any religious tags unless they are exclusively pilgrimage sites. We cannot have tags in small towns or villages in Pakistan if they had Hindu or Sikh population before 1947. Then over 50% of Pakistani cities and towns will have these tags. Then we should also be adding tags in Indian towns an villages that have Muslims before 1947. Let us all work together to resolve these issues. Misaq Rabab (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I second the comment above. It is ironic how Indian nationalism seeps into almost every page on Wikipedia. I presume if we started putting Category:Pre-partition history of Pakistan ;) on articles relating to sub-continental history for regions now in Pakistan before the partition, Indian sentiments would be the same.
The thing with the name India is that before partition the sub-continent was in fact called India, so we can't do anything about that. Anyway, removing such tags from Pakistani towns and cities is a good idea. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
native people from Pakistan or their descendants, pre-Islamic, Zorastrian, Jewish, Animist, Shamanist, Polytheistic, Buddhist, Jain, Aryan, Vedic, Hindu, Pagan descent.
Remaining Places in Pakistan of Pre-Islamic Zorastrian/Pagan/Aryan/Polytheistic/Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Aryan/Vedic architectural and tangible heritage .
Places in Pakistan with pre Islamic Zorastrian/Pagan/Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Aryan/Vedic religious significance
Pakistan Pre Islamic Zorastrian/Pagan/Animist/Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Aryan/Vedic Intangible cultural heritage including pre Islamic
”
Perhaps if we could work on defining the cat a little more specifically - because the description (as well as being a little inelegant) is too broad. I think it may have been edited by an ip editor just prior to being renamed Pahari Sahib16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting a committee for third opinion of citations
Epilogous to the talks regarding sectarianism -
The debate surrounding the sectarianism has taken off well. I see that wherever references were made to Shi'a Islam, they were supported by a citation referencing a book by Vali Nasr (The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam will Shape the Future (W.W. Norton & Company, 2006)). I recently went off to a book store to check the references and they seemed legit. What I propose here is a committee that could commit third opinions on matters like this, whereby, people can volunteer to check references in books, articles (journal articles where students/researchers may have access). If the references sound legit, then we can have them on the pages. If there are citation stating otherwise the dispute can always be solved this way. I don't think people like LahoreKid are generally at fault, however I must say the forceful nature of the said user naturally made his remarks unacceptable. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or are you determined on proving that Jinnah was not a Shi'a Muslim? Don't blame me for being a bit hostile, but it isn't up to you or any editor to decide what is a reliable source. WP:Reliable sources clearly states: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." The sources come from Vali Nasr, the Council on Foreign Relations, Husain Haqqani and the Middle East Forum, so their reliability is not questioned. LahoreKid (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I know Jinnah was a proclaimed Shia. You took it negatively again LahoreKid. I do not mean to challenge the facts. Just for the sake of it I bought Vali Nasr's book. The citation review is for people who see citations but do not have the resource available to them, while neutral editors can comment on the source verifying their validity. I would say I am neutral here because neither am I a Muslim (Shia or Sunni alike), nor a Hindu. Editors would only comment on the links provided or the books unavailable to others. I have an academic login account for majority of the journals. That way I can second the facts presented and give it a go. Keep in mind, in no way is my verdict challenging a citation but in fact sheds light on topics at hand. Rest is for the users to decide. Focus on the words "third opinion". It is just an opinion. I am not imposing that my will be done. See the citation review page again for confirmation of what I meant. I don't challenge the fact, I double-check the references for others. Please get it right this time around. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 00:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the last point; no, and doing so in view of that comment would very likely lead to sanctions. The only answer, as ever, is discussion and consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently looked at the Pashtun diaspora article. It seems that some of the changes by Misaq Rabab cannot be considered "vandalism" (ex. adding more info to the lead and Pakistan section). However the removal of content in the India section would constitute vandalism. Maybe you guys should talk it out before reverting/calling it vandalism. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently came upon the Lal Masjid siege article. I looked through it and saw that it had potential to get WP:Good Article, if not become a Feature Article. I have spent a large amount of time on this article going through line by line, reviewing past comments on the article to fix any errors. I am still not completely done with the article and I am now on the Al-Qaeda and foreign fighters section. One thing that I still have problem with this article is that it lacks pictures. I added one after some time figuring out the policies for uploading images however it still needs more pictures. If you guys could please help me with this article and add pictures to it, it would be really appreciated. (Also view the talk page for comments on the name for the article.) Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right article needs some more pictures, otherwise it is a good article and I think you should contact someone at WP:WPGA for help in making it a GA. Besides can we have images from the ISPR's website under GFDL license or in public domain, because I also want to have some images from there to be uploaded here. --SMSTalk17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The images at the ISPR are few that relate to the topic so its really not helpful...I'll try and find some more. Thanks for the comments. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Page was deleted by User:Jmlk17, with this reason "A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance". I have informed the admin regarding your querry, he may reply here soon. --SMSTalk20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I just recreated it, with refs, lets see what happens, Should have been an AFD not a quicky deletion (IMO). Pahari Sahib20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well looks like Ragib is going to get his way and the article will be deleted (again) - I think it should be kept, if you would like to keep (or delete it) then make your views known here. Incidentally the article has six sources, so don't know where the <5 came from (and no they are not wiki mirror sites). Note WP:ORG states
“
however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations.
Per WP:CANVASS, you are not supposed to try vote-stacking. Please remove the call above. As for your 6 sources, one is false (just alludes to the org when mentioning the affiliation of a speaker at a talk). The rest of the 5 are referring to the same non-notable event, and thousands of such events by non-notable organizations happen and are reported by newspapers everyday. --Ragib (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not an attempt to vote stack, I have noted above "I think it should be kept, if you would like to keep (or delete it) then make your views known" and also "Maybe I am interpreting the above wrong, or maybe I am right, make your views known" - I have not asked anyone to vote to keep the article, rather I wish to WP:Pakistan involved in the decision to delete or keep an article that relates to Pakistan - as this is how I became aware of the article to begin with. If you feel aggrieved in some way - or that it violates wiki policy then remove it yourself with an adequate justification. Thanks Pahari Sahib20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.".
Also,
"Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive."
I am not canvassing - I am not posting this on individual users' pages, this article was first mentioned in this section (which is named after the article!) by Misaq Rabab (you only have to see above) - so it is only logical I mention it here (and where do I actually ask people to keep the article?). If you believe it is being disruptive or compromises wikipedia somehow, them remove it.
The user User:Ragib deleted the original Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association page without any discussion. It was resurrected after I objected to its disappearence. Now he seems determined to have this page again deleted. What is his motivation ? There are at least hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that may not meet Wikipedia standard and may be be candidate for deletion. I am really interested to know why User:Ragib has such objections for this page. Misaq Rabab (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop lying outright. I have NEVER deleted this article. Please refer to article deletion log if you want to know who deleted the article. And also, please don't make any ad hominem attacks. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I nominated it. NO, I didn't delete it, someone else did. You can find it from the link above. The article was deleted under Speedy deletion criteria. So, you are simply lying when you claim I deleted it. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So you accept that you nominated it for speedy deletion without AfD. Why did you nominate it ? Now I remember ! You were wiki stalking me and I had just finished editing that page. Other pages you reverted my changes but this page you had speedy deleted ? May I know why ? You then nominatedList of Pakistan friendship associations for deletion and now are again on case of resurrected Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association ? Why ? May be you should read Newton's third law of motion. Misaq Rabab (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is your final warning regarding the nonsense about stalking.
As for why I nominated it under Speedy, see WP:CSD. I believe you are not at all familiar with article deletion procedures. Non-notable articles are nominated for speedy deletion right away, if they satisfy any criteria for speedy deletion. Even a speedy del nomination does not mean the article is going to be deleted ... the deleting admin applies his/her own judgment whether it satisfies speedy deletion criteria. I nominated it under {{db-corp}}. Why I nominated it? Because at that point, the article, sans any references, satisfied CSD#A7. There is no requirement that I have to put it under AFD if I feel it should be a speedy. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies first. And please, no ad hominem attacks regarding this. --Ragib (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Only admins can delete pages, Ragib is not an admin. Although I do have to remind you, Ragib that common courtesy is to usually notify the user who created the article, that it is being nominated for deletion. I did not find in Misaq Rabab or Pahari Sahib's talkpages you proposing Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association for deletion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have a problem with that? If I mark the references per wikipedia policy, what is your problem exactly? I request you to refrain from your continuous name calling and other ad hominem attacks. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Notifying the creator is an option and NOT a requirement, and since the creator of the page can clearly see the afd tag, there is no real point here. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, Misaq Rabab, you are getting out of line here. If I have nominated any article, that is simply because the article fails some Wikipedia policy about notability. And I have every right to do so. As for your "changes", all such actions by me have been clearly explained to you in your talk page, if you can't recall them, please check your archive.
As for the continuous allegation of "stalking", please either prove I did so, learn the meaning of "wikistalking", then come here. Your continuous allegation is unfounded. You are always welcome to send a note about your claims to admin's noticeboard. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You are out of line here ! You are on obsessively nominating Pakistan related articles for speedy deletion. You were wiki stalking me 20:15, 9 May 2008 to 20:23, 9 May 2008 check your log Wikistalking log this does not include Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association and List of Pakistan friendship associations because they were deleted due to your direct actions. learn the meaning of "wikistalking", then come here you should also advise your self about common courtesy of informing others before nominating artices for speedy deletion. You should avoid obsessive-compulsive behavior regarding Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association. If you are so concerned about "notability" then go out and check each and every artices. Why this unexplained obsession with Pakistani related articles ? What is your motivation ? Misaq Rabab (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This type of monologues sans any meaning is useless. Please provide a proof for your statement "You are on obsessively nominating Pakistan related articles for speedy deletion. ", or apologize for making a false claim.
Regarding what articles I "should nominate" for notability issues, I suggest we focus on what "I have" nominated on notability problems. I quote the wikipedia guideline on stalking, since you are constantly referring to that:
"Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). These logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter."
No part of my edits are related to any disruption. Nominating a non-notable list is not in any way prohibited. Rather, removing non-notable crap is the rule. In all cases regarding your edits, you have been notified. So, I hope you'll stop the meaningless rhetoric regarding "following you around". Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So what about all other crap in wikipedia ? Why are you obsessed about finding non-notable in Pakistan related articles ? Why don't you start with all articles starting with a and working towards z. Why this obsessive attention to Pakistani articles ? How many have Pakistan related articles have you had speedly deleted when nobody was watching ? One has to wonder. Wiki stalking, obsessive behavior and having Pakistani articles speedly deleted without AfD seems to be your style. Misaq Rabab (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Misaq Rabab, you are increasingly getting personal here, if you want to continue making personal comments, I suggest that you use my or your talk page for that, and spare the project noticeboard to rant about personal opinions. If you find any more non-notable article, feel free to notify me about them. I'll be happy to check those articles and mark them appropriately. You are also very much welcome to look into my contribution logs, which contain all actions I have ever taken in Wikipedia, to answer your other queries. As for what you consider my style to be, you are entitled to your opinion, but please take into account WP:NPA and other policies regarding personal attacks when making one. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As it turns out, Misaq Rabab (talk·contribs) is a sockpuppet of the user Paknur (talk·contribs), and has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Now this makes perfect sense ... his disruption as seen above is not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of disruption. --Ragib (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community
Hello folks,
The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)
If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.
Editing control of Urdu and History of the Urdu Language
I have just been able to join the project. I am concerned here that the History of the Urdu Language article is being maintained by the WikiProject:India. Unfortunately I also discovered that the article is a direct cut and paste from another website. I believe the article will be better served in terms of building at as a valid research article if we were to maintain it through the WikiProject:Pakistan project. Please let me know how we can do this.
Also I have become concerned about the actual Urdu article itself. There seems to be a lot of reverts going on there based on disputed facts. Is there a way we could be assigned as maintenance to that article as well? Thank you. Eios1234 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Eios1234
I just went over the Urdu and History of the Urdu language articles and it seems your right. Both articles seem to promote Hindi rather than give information on Urdu. I cannot keep clean up the articles right now but I added them to my watchlist so I'll go through new edits to the article. We do not have a formal way of organizing our members to work on a project and still need to do that. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just thougth I'd let you know that Eios 1234 has recieved a 1-week block for sockpupeteering [3]. Anway, I do not wish to continue my tiff with him here. About the Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani language articles: I agree that there is a lot of cross-subject information in the three articles. Some of the information is duplicated , in other cases it seems to contradict.That needs to be taken care of I would request Wikipedians from Pakistan and India who are genuiney interested in lingusitics to collaborate and ensure that the quality of these three articles is improved instead of using it as a patiotic battle-ground. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Eios1234 is not listed as a member of our project even though his userpage might say so. Otherwise, I cannot assist you in improving the said articles as I am not interesting in linguistics. Sorry. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested
Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Since a month ago, WP Pakistan issued new rules in managing B-Class articles. The articles need to fulfil what we call the B-Class criteria. If you open the WP Pakistan banner from the banner shell. You can do this by clicking the [Show] link. Then open up the Additional Information panel by clicking the [Show] link next to it, you'll see that the criteria shown needs to be fulfiled. Once all the criteria is fulfiled, the article gets a B-Class otherwise, it remains Start. Hope this helps. I have added the procedure of checking how to check a criteria in the talk page of the article. Check it out. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Noor Jehan article
I have just started editing the Noor Jehan article and am facing confusion big time. The original article which does not have any citations what so ever is going against the two sources I have got. The article seems like a copy paste job with some ammendments made that are not possible. The extensive source that I plan on using as this is the only biography I found on web says that Jehan was born in 1929. Another source stated that she was born sometime between 1922 and 1929. The confusion arises when the author of the article writes about Jehan acting in silent movies in 1930. She would be just one year old, however, as the article goes it seems like he is talking of her as if she was much older. It is possible but seems strange because the author at first talks about her training in classical music. We need to come to a consensus as to when Jehan was born so that the article could be ammended in light of the foundings made. Also suggestions on resourses will be useful.SholeemGriffin (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the Noor Jehan article several times because that article sounds as if its promoting Noor Jehan so I admire your willingness to take the task. I researched some sources and found this one that says she was born in 1926. This news article also supports her being born in 1926. It would also be a bit ridiculous to believe she started acting in movies at the age of one during that time period. Hope this helps. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point, that is why I edited the DOB to 1926. Thanks for the other resources as well. If any one finds any data contrary to what is in the article, please feel free to correct me as there is a lot of false information over the internet. You can discuss anything that needs doing on the Noor Jehan discussion page.SholeemGriffin (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
Stale
