Jump to content

Talk:NA-1 Upper Chitral-cum-Lower Chitral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constituency NA-32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constituency NA-32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate order

[edit]

If you can stop for a while I will arrange as per vote banks. Can you please wait and watch ? How can I edit completely when repeatedly changes take place in between. Please keep editing other NAs. I am helping you in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawadmdr (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jawadmdr: I already arranged them before you reverted me the first time, did you even check what were you reverting before doing so, you do not have to engage in unnecessary edit-wars but that is what your attitude seems like remembering what you were doing on polls article. Please do not arrange them by your own purported vote banks. We must put them in order by parties in 2013 results. First you removed ANP candidate, I added both ANP and MMA, you reverted me again removing ANP and keeping MMA, third time, same. Do you call it helping? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: Shehzadaz of Chitral are winners 2 times previously and MMA's nominee one time. Last time combine MMA vote bank was highest so we have to arrange keeping in mind previous results. This is not a edit war. I will arrange every NA irrespective of any party keeping in view candidate and overall party strength in last three elections.Jawadmdr (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadmdr: Look, I will quit editing constituency articles if you are going to undo all my work like this. We need to put them in order keeping the party in mind for the last elections not by candidate. I suggest going back to status quo and discuss that on talk page of the article, gain consensus whether to put them by party or by candidate. I am fine if consensus goes in your favor but this is no way to do stuff by hook or crook in your own way and undoing hours of work put in by other editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: I have deep respect for you I have no intention to do any thing that you do not like. I simply request you to watch my edits you will soon relise that arrangement reflect local news paper analysis, Last three elections candidate performance (Electible concept) and Party performance in last three elections. This will help us greatly filling election results because winner or runer up will in majiority cases stay in order. It is going to be very informative for readers. How can you place shehzada family at last. I think you will soon understand the importance of my efforts. I acknowledge your work is far superior then me. I am 1% you are 100. Regards for you Jawadmdr (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadmdr: I disagree with the way you ordered the candidates. My goal was the same to make it easier on election day but I think the ordering should be by party position in previous election if a party did not exist in previous election then we can consult with 2008 election. Shahzada won twice on APML ticket but this time he is running on PML (N) which was almost the last in 2013 among the parties contesting now, PTI candidate was second in 2013 thus their candidate goes on top as APML is not contesting on this constituency. Also this is not the good way to edit to remove a sourced entry as you did by removing ANP candidate and then telling the other editor whose work you undid to add it back again. That is the double work for other editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: Prince family is electable with constant votes irrespective of the party. They switch third time but have same number of votes. PTI is also improving. My bet is MMA with combine vote of JUIF and JUI. Howerver all three are favourite. Thanks. Jawadmdr (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jawadmdr: We do not go by the hunch of editors, if we go by your logic, the order of candidates will get completely confusing and it would be up to just one editor's mind (yourself) to come up with such an order. We should keep it simple by simply looking at 2013 results and ordering the candidates according to party performances then when the results come in, the votes can be initially be put in without changing the order. The winner does not necessarily have to be on on the top of the list to signal a win, the folks can look at the number of votes to determine the winner plus it would be bolded out. After that, time allowing the order can be changed by anyone. 18:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you SheriffIsInTown for your hard work for updating all NA pages. Good suggestion Number 57 and Saqib. We can decide a plan of action.
  • SheriffIsInTown keep updating every NA page (the way you were doing) with 2002,2008 and 2013 election numbers and 2018 candidates.
  • I will arrange 2018 candidates based on last three election party position, Candidates vote history and Local news paper based analysis. This will give us best possible election estimates of result's order.
  • Number 57 and Saqib will then reverse my edits with alphabetical list.
  • After election we will have least effort of re arranging candidates because Edit history will contain my close to ground reality candidates list which can be recovered easily. Jawadmdr (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadmdr:Please just put them in the right order in the first place. If you fail to respect the consensus developed here, then your edits will be deemed disruptive. No-one should have to follow you around correcting your edits because you're too stubborn to accept that this is the way it should be done. Number 57 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Then go ahead what are you waiting ? There are 272 NAs, Make all of them alphabetically. I will not edit any. THANKS Jawadmdr (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PTI backed independent is still independent

[edit]

@Saad Ali Khan Pakistan PTI backed independent is still officially an independent candidate, when reporting election results, their classification would be independent but you can include a note stating that the candidate was backed by PTI. You cannot classify them as PTI-IND because this was not their classification and you cannot classify them as PTI-SIC a they did not run as such. Here is the source where does it state PTI or PTI-IND or PTI-SIC? They did not run under any such classification. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NA-1_Upper_Chitral-cum-Lower_Chitral&oldid=1228242603"