Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 4 July 2013

Archives

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Somnath Bharti

Hi. I notice you undid my revision at Somnath Bharti article citing unsourced BLP info wherese i have stated in concern talk page ,the source of info added .Pls look/go through it before reverting content from article.Thanks. TY of 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a better idea, get the sources before adding content to a BLP. It is a policy we have around here, I am sure of that. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Source (cited) is affidavit candidature form submitted by somnath bharti himself. See the Somnath Bharti talk page. TY of 20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations do not go on a talk page, and you cannot use that as a citation per WP:BLPPRIMARY Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Primary issue here is Date of birth.How is it WP:BLPPRIMARY ? I cited the source at talk page to discuss but it seems no body is interested ? TY of 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read BLP:PRIMARY? "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

then how one, can confirm his date of birth w/o public documents (oops!hv read BLP:PRIMARY soory!)? TY of 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please guide me ,How to source DOB w/o public source . TY of 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I already looked, and found zilch, unless it gets mentioned by a secondary reliable source you cannot add it, sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I never knew that we could not cite such a source on a BLP. Do you know the reason for this? If yes, can you explain to me? I am curious, cz i don't understand why rnt we allowed to cite such documents. Cheers, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So as to not make life easy for stalkers and headbangers. Such documents will often have a persons home/work address or phone number on them. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaah OK! Thanks :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Heya

Can you have a look here? Is the RfC's result more important, or the "many votes"? Faizan 14:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just asked you because you recently gave a brilliant response to a conflict solving it. Faizan 14:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult call really, a few in the RFC were in favour of Bangladesh, others PGoB. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, what exactly do you find objectionable about the edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The real objection of the RfC was against "Bangladesh" or "PGB" both. My preference was EP. When the result says "PGoB", is it not sufficient to get only PGoB on the spot. Is it not much compromise already? Now Will I go for another RfC to make sure it was not solely for "BG"? I cannot see more than 1 comment ins support of BG. Some have opted for MB, while most for the PGoB. Then, is it not justified? Even after having an RfC? Faizan 14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Faizan: Well the results of the RFC should be honoured and this change brought to the talk page, I would recommend you start the discussion as soon as you have the chance. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no chance left. Faizan 14:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DS, is there any harm to have the belligerent like this → Bangladesh, the link is pointing towards the provisional government article but since the entity identifies themselves as Bangladesh, I have put the term.--Zayeem 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I wrote above that it seemed like a reasonable compromise, but you have to respect the outcome of the RFC. Post to the talk page and see what everyone has to say. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no harm, but when others come out of an RfC, you get no right to go against it. Better continue it at talk. Faizan 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		Awarded to Darkness Shines for protecting my user page from attacks of vandalism... Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any time buddy, this shield will come in handy methinks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Franki_Love

Thank you for your help on the Franki Love article! I'm not sure why my citations aren't being accepted. Could you give me a run down of each of the citations that are unacceptable and why so that I can improve the page and add new citations? Thanks! Jheditorials (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS or WP:BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I have also added several questions to the Franki_Love talk page. I would appreciate it if you could answer them. Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Muhafiz Khan Mosque

On 4 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhafiz Khan Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Muhafiz Khan Mosque is considered to be an excellent example of Mughal architecture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muhafiz Khan Mosque. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing scintillating articles

After reading (and editting) your article on Muhafiz Khan Mosque I looked at the edit history and your edit process. I noticed, from the last 50% of the edits, that although you had made minor tweaks, it had not occurred to you to make any significant adjustment to either expression or arrangement of sentences.

These two things are vital processes to the really effective editor. You cannot write ‘’really good’’ articles without using them. And the shorter your article, the easier it is.

• Make sure that the first paragraph really does say the most important things. In this case, don’t describe the building until you have given the time frame and stated why it is notable.
• Put the whole description together.
• Put related things into the same sentence.
• Don’t put unrelated things in the same sentence.

These two statements seem so obvious that it ought to be unnecessary to say them, but it isn’t. Here is a classic example:

The mosque is named for the governor of the region at that time, and measures 51 feet by 36 feet. The minarets stand 50 feet high.

In this instance it is plain that the source of the name has nothing whatever to do with the width of the façade. On the other hand, the width has a direct relationship with the height, and the two facts should be together.

• Don’t jam an unrelated (or lesser related) fact between two that are closely related.

Afzal Khan has said that rioters damaged intricate carvings on the southern elevations of the building; he believed the damage to be irreparable. (The mosque was a protected building under the auspices of the Archaeological Survey of India.) This damage has caused upset among India's Muslim population.

You have two statements about the damage, and jammed in between them is a distracting statement about a government body. The government body is mentioned again further down. The beauty of the media in which you are writing (word processor, not pen and ink) is that you can rearrange sentences like that in approximately 3 seconds.

• Likewise, make sure that things within a sentence are in the correct order.
• Explain those thing that will not be clear to your casual reader.

I am located in Australia. I do not have any clue who Afzal Khan is. You haven’t linked him. Even if he is linked, if he is not as well known as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Princess Diana, you need to state whether he is a politician, a writer, a historian or what? Write The historian Afzal Khan stated…. (or whatever).

• Make sentences, not train carriages linked together with bolts, i.e. if Khan stated two things ..”that rioters caused damage” and “that the damage is irreparable” join the two statements with “and”. Don’t write a separate sentence with a new “he” and a new verb. Semi-colons used in this way result in clumsy constructions.

1. Don’t write journalese. No-one is counting the number of lines that you write. This is an encyclopedia and sentences should be properly constructed. One of the enemies of good writing is the journalistic use of nouns as adjectives.

In architectural history, there is no such thing as a “three arch façade”. Don’t write The building has a three arch façade when you can write The façade of the building has three arches.

• The word “features” when used as a verb is almost always inappropriate. The building doesn’t feature anything! It simply has certain forms or characteristics. It is sufficient to say that it has a minaret at either end. Don’t say it features a minaret at either end. If the building has some really unusual element that is not commonly found elsewhere then refer to that, in the noun form, as “a feature of the building” e.g. A feature of this mosque is the intricate carving on the surface of the minarets. Don’t write The mosque features intricate carving on the minaret.

Hope this is helpful in other articles.

If you want to know where I’m coming from, I have re-vamped the following: St Paul’s Cathedral, St Peters Basilica, Leonardo da Vinci and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches.

Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your article in user space

Please include 'userpage' template at the top of this article you have created in user space. Thanks. neo (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? I have a fair few drafts in userspace, why choose this one in particular? Out of curiosity, is there a policy on this? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Some reader may treat it wiki encyclopedic article if it appears in search results. That's why this template is created to tell reader that it is not wiki main space article. neo (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That is for userpages, not drafts. I am trying to get an article fixed here, so please leave me be. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Pls read carefully. That's for any page in "user space". neo (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Pls read carefully, leave me alone. I have neither the time nor the inclination to waste my time discussing this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article you have created is content forking of 2002 Gujarat violence and content forking in user space to avoid NPOV is disallowed as per this policy. I request you to include 'userpage' or 'userspace daft' template at the top of the page. I also request you to choose non-controversial subject for test editing and tag this page for speedy deletion as early as possible. neo (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I told you to go away, why have you not? It is not an article, I am researching and rewriting the current piece of shite that is in mainspace. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling the article 2002 Gujarat violence as 'shite' is not good way. That article is written by wikipedia community with consensus over 10 years. Please propose your edits on article's talkpage and tag your daft for speedy deletion. If not, I will propose it at Miscellany for Deletion. Thank you for your understanding. neo (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Last time, go away. Do not post here again. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)