User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/August

Jinnah

Hi TopGun,
Sorry for catching up after so long. I was busy with some office work that's why couldn't spend more time on the Jinnah article. I have made some edits to the lead paragraph. You can check it and let me know if any more work is required on it.
Secondly have you found any references for the sentences which have a tag added to them?
I was also thinking of removing one or two pictures from the article so that a symmetry may be formed in it, it looks like that pictures have been just placed in it without any order. What do you recommend? I was also thinking of raising the picture related topic at the talk page so that other editors may also express there opinions.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the pictures will have to be re-arranged. Just keep in mind that they do not displace the edit buttons or headings. I've a few sources on my hardisk on his law carrier and will like to expand it into a section, I'll do that later maybe. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Let me know if I could be of any assistance. In the mean while I'll try to do some more work on the articles body and make some amendments so that it may look better and become more readable.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the stuff I had. Take a look and see if you can give a better look to the over all heading sequence. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah I saw some additions to the article. They seem good to me :). I was talking to the admin who has been guiding me. After adjusting the lead paragraph these are his comments:
"I would start with the lede. The first paragraph is generally fine. However, after that, I would, in the remainder of the lede, go through Jinnah's life chronologically, at least the highlights, while of course concentrating on what he is best known for, his leading the Muslim League and advocating establishment of Pakistan, his role as GG in independent Pakistan, then what he is remembered for. Also, I think you should merge the criticism section into the other sections of the article."
I will try to rewrite the lead paragraph as he has said but I don't exactly know how to merge the criticism paragraph in the rest of the article as some user's (you know) may be against it. But I have been going through some FA and GA, almost all of them were without such a section. So I think the admin is right in this respect that it should be merged. Where do you suggest I should begin with?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the criticism is even undue. Those sentences should be moved to where he asked for a separate state and for a plebiscite for Kashmir and then the lines about Junaghar can be added in context. Simply stating as such is out of context and just for the sake of criticism which, as you said is not done in good articles. Also try giving it a better heading sequence along with merging / removing undue criticism. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will start working on that section.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I have changed the heading of criticism to Views and oratory. Will be adding some more information in a day or two. I also wanted to take your opinion on this article as I created it and was thinking of nominating it for GA, Manzoor Ul Haq Siddiqi is the article. I just saw Salimuzzaman Siddiqui rated as a GA, so thought to give it a try. What do you suggest?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 15:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks good, but some more sources are needed, esp. in last three sections. Everything has to be sourced before you nominate. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add some more when I have my hands on them. So what do you suggest should be done with Jinnah article? Any more work you suggest should be done on it?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on Jinnah too with you.. I'll add anything I think of. Good going till now. I'm watching the talk page discussion. There's some issue about images, hope it's not a big deal as they are in public domain. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I also saw the comment on the talk page regarding the lead image. I thought to add some more information regarding him, but there is already a lot of work that needs to be done on the article before adding up more of it. Though I am quite excited as this is my first article that would be heading to the house of FA but sooner or later small problems come up which become a bottleneck in the process. By the way there are some images of Jinnah present in the public libraries which can be used with the consent of the publishing house and the author. Should I try to get them or we can get some from the gallery like this one for instance?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have access, that's good. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest?.

Ref: Muhammad Ali Jinnah

• Hi dear TopGun,I think "Biography" includes and describes all sections. "Personal life" and then "Early life", that similarity is not suitable in my veiw, and meaning is same, then why same title as a section and subsection. You know better, now what do you suggest, "Biography" is appropriate or "Personal life" because twice life, life, sound no good. I think so. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the whole article is a "biography" so it will not really be a descriptive title. You're right, "personal life" is not elegant, try another title. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand, actually I have added to many bio articles that "Biography" and that I learnt from Drmies. Nevertheless, I have changed subsections rather than-.Please take a look at, that are good or you have a preference for another?. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is better now. Headings should give some useful info already not given by other things. "Biography" is already obvious from the fact that it is a bio article so we should have some new information in the heading (this also goes for other bio articles). If you get a better idea, feel free to rename them further. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hi, I'm doing some work on article improvement there, putting things in a more organized fashion and so forth. Inlandmamba asked me to, with a view at GA or FA. There will be duplications and so forth as I go through it, but they will be short lived. Appreciate your consideration on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw some duplications. I recently added the content in detail, so I've adjusted the duplication for you. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no great point in separate sections on his legal and political career, when most of his notable cases were in his early years. Please let me take a shot at it, and if it is unsatisfactory, it can always be reverted. I've written some at the FA level and I know how to present an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The point of separate section was the notability of both carriers. If you have a way around to present it in another way keeping the due weightage, give it a try. As for the duplication, I think it is good now, so you can move the whole paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see how I can work it. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please allow me to work on it for a bit without edit conflicts? Your contributions are valuable, and I'm not running them down. But I'm trying to edit that section, and I can't, if you are as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stay away from it for a while and make objections in the end... I've edited some where I had objections without running down what you explained here about merging etc. Do not consider it an edit war, your edits are improving the article, keep on editing... WP:IAR. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't considered it an edit war. I'm here to improve the article because Inlandmamba asked me and the subject matter seemed interesting and a change of pace from my usual US articles. I know what passes at FA, I need people who grew up with the subject matter, so to speak, to let me know the things that they need to see in the article because that is what they expect an article about Jinnah to have in it. Just wait half an hour after my last edit to the article, please. I'm trying to sort out that quote from the fellow barrister, which is wrong, it is not "leader", it is "pleader".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also check that I am complying with English as it is spoken/written in, I suppose, Pakistan and India per WP:ENGVAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, take your shot and then I can see if there is any issue. I tried keeping in all the edits while making my revert and didn't know that you were editing the article consistently and simultaneously. I can help you on the subject matter; I can be attributed as, as you say, one of the editors who "grew up" with the subject matter. I also have some experience with GA & FA guidelines, though not nearly as much as you but enough to keep the article clean of the issues. You know what I intended to do there; I did some reading before adding the content I reverted in and did not want it to be lost in the edit history after massive editing, hence the reverts. Make the rest of your copy edit and I can then take a look and see if things are missing. In your last series of edits, you removed the sourced phrase "Jinnah's law career was full of victories" without rewriting it in any other form... but I guess, like you said, you are doing it in phases. So I'll compare when you're done with your copy edits to see that no information is lost. That is all I'm concerned about, other wise you're edited versions are going good. And sure, I'll see if the text complies with Pakistani English. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Top Gun, just a quick word that it's best to give the person a couple hours to show you where they are going and THEN discuss... too many edit conflicts in the heat of editing lose the flow. This is a good faith editor and sometimes you just have to take a deep breath and then discuss the changes. Hope all is getting sorted out. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, you seem to know a lot about this specific topic, and that is great. Wehwalt has more FAs than anyone on en wiki and his specialty is political article. I suggest you let Wehwalt take the lead on copyediting and structure and you provide material and reliable sources. When I collaborate on an article, such as I am on on Franz Kafka with User;Gerda Arendt, we define who is focusing on what ahead of time so we don't step on one another's toes. PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been addressed above. Actually we came into conflict because I thought that some information was duplicated, and later some was lost when he adjusted it, so I made some reverts trying to keep everything. I'll let me edit away as much he wants before I edit further there ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• What I plan to do next is the early years as a politician. I may begin with a paragraph on the beginnings of the independence movement, then trace Jinnah's growing political involvement. I am not sure the names of the sections work well but will leave them for the time being.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As you can see in the above section, I tried to get the sections at the Jinnah article to make some sense and address the weightage... but I agree this is not really elegant. What do you have in mind? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure yet, will give it some thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am watching edits and waiting, but I think discussion about the article of Jinnah should be on the talk page of the article not here. This is not related page.It will be easy for uninvolved editors to review the discussion. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Making something clear

At DS's talkpage you wrote " Also, his first move was a revert because he changed content by another editor. Any amend of another editor's contribution, same or different, is a revert." No, it isn't. If you think about it, defining like that would mean that nearly every edit would be a revert.

WP:REVERT sums it up - "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously." Since DS wasn't undoing another edit, but changing it, his first move wasn't a revert. The second one was, because it restored the article to his previous version. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually in the context I was right, if you check the history, there were previous very recent moves which were amended by this one. And as you stated normally results in the exact previous version, but when you change to your further will... it results in a different version. That is a revert too. So every edit in which you edit previous content is a revert unless you are introducing completely new content. This was clarified at WT:EW by us before. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As you wish, but I seriously wouldn't try going to WP:AN3 or any similar noticeboard and try to use your definition there. I certainly wouldn't block based on it and I doubt if any other admin would either. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't planning to take it to AN3 yet, that's why I asked him on the talk page instead. You can read the explanations made here for the purpose to which none of the involved further objected: WT:EW#Definition of a revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rape in Northeast India for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape in Northeast India is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Independence Day (Pakistan)

Hell I should have started the work 2 days ago! Anyways, I plan to do a lot with the article and I'll finish by midnight and will go for Good article nom tonight, probably at 3 am. I'll ask the editor who reviewed Independence Day (India) as I'm using that article as a guideline and will see that all issues raised in that GAN are covered. As you live in Pakistan, you might be able to add few facts which I can never so please do if possible. Lets hope that it gets GA before the day arrives :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 11:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Talk:Independence Day (Pakistan)/GA1‎ - almost there guys! But need help with section 4 and 5, and require more refs. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)`

Sure, I'll take a look. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal Day

• Hi TopGun, I have just created the article Iqbal Day, it will be soon expanded, but there will be needed your assistance in this regard. Please take a look at-, make better if needed. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! I've watchlisted it, will add to it on the go. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi. Your name was selected at random from Feedback Request Service as an editor that may be willing to comment on RfCs. There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if you are so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing input. That was fast! Could you take a moment and check the RfC again ... the wording of your reply suggests that the RfC may be written poorly. Your comment sounds like the RfC is asking about whether a DRN case can proceed if a party refuses to participate. That is not quite right: The RfC is trying to ask: If there are 3 parties, and 2 have commented (with an Opening statement) can other editors (not parties) supply helpful comments on the DRN case? or must they wait for the 3rd party. I hope that is clearer. Thanks for helping out! --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Yes, I got it. I meant to convey that if a party has not yet responded and does not want to participate, it would waste other editors' time to comment on that. The RFC's wording is fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)