User talk:Bob chasm

Welcome!

Hello, Bob chasm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Supposition

Your article about Syed Ali Nawab consisted primarily of supposition and insinuation. ("It is not clear if...", "persons of similar name and rank..."). This is not the stuff of an encyclopedia. If you can't absolutely verify that Nawab had a hand in Pakistan's nuclear program, then we can't include the material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed attempts to link Nawab to AQ Khan's work. While it is true that the two met, and it is true that Khan received materials through officers "deputed" by Nawab (i.e. assigned by Nawab to his specific duties), this does not imply that Nawab was directly involved in Khan's work, and attempts to implicate him in Khan's work will need much better sourcing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I appreciate the advice. I agree with removing insinuations and unsupported assertions. However, I don't think that the last article you removed suggested "that the two had met" and I was exaggerating the connection between them. The article actually said he had "close contact and meetings" with these generals. Also, did you realize that the article is by A.Q. Khan himself? So, I think that makes it a good reason to think Khan worked directly with Nawab, unless you have a source that says otherwise. Are you seeing something in the bigger picture that doesn't fit, that I might be missing? Looking forward to your feedback and assistance. Thanks.

I don't have a source that says Khan did not work directly with Nawab. But I also don't have a source that says that Khan did work directly with Nawab. The two-part article by Khan merely mentions Nawab as "a competent officer" with whom he had contact, but says nothing of Nawab actually providing any material assistance in Khan's work. For you to conclude that Nawab assisted Khan in the development of nuclear weapons is an assumption based on the facts presented. I agree that it is a reasonable assumption, but it is still an assumption, and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Such conclusions based on sources that do not explicitly state a fact are called WP:SYNTHESIS, and they are not allowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, "I (Dr. A.Q. Khan) also had close contact and meetings with Gen Haq Nawaz, Gen. Tanvir Naqvi, Gen M. Akram Khan, Gen Akhtar Abdul Rahman, Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch, Gen Sharif Nasir, Gen Ali Kuli Khan, Gen Shamim Alam, Gen Ahmed Jamal, Gen Mustafa Kamal, Gen Arshad Chaudhry, Gen Ali Nawab, Gen Moinuddin Haider, Gen Saeed Qadir, ....".

So, it is recorded on a stand alone basis, (NOT A SYNTHESIS) that Khan had "close contact and meetings" with these officers. As far as I know, one only has close contact and meetings with those one is working with directly. How does one not work with someone directly, but still manage to have close contact and meetings with them? So, you do have a source that says he worked with Khan directly.

Secondly, Khan acknowledges publically in the media that Nawab provided an engineer to KRL who assisted Khan's work. So, we can conclude Nawab assisted Khan's work. It is a stand alone conclusion (NOT A SYNTHESIS).

By the way, can you please take another look at the piece? It no longer argues that Nawab actually worked with Khan. It simply points out that Khan has mentioned Nawab in several opinions released to the media and what he said about Nawab. Thanks.

Details

PeerBaba Thanks for your help with editing. I hope you didn't mind that I took down a lot of your work suggesting Nawab was overseeing the project at KRL. I don't think @WikiDan61: and others would have let it stand without references.

I also wanted to point out that MIMechE is not a Masters in Mechanical Engineering as you were suggesting. Similarly and more importantly MIElecE is not a Masters in Electrical Engineering. MIMechE is a reference to a "Membership" level at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in Britain. One had to pass a rigorous standardized exam to reach MIMechE. The appeal of MIMechE was that it gave one instant acceptability and recognition as a qualified engineer in England regardless of where one attended college. In contrast, there was no rigorous standardized exam to be a Member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers (MIElecE) etc. So, one could, theoretically speaking, be a trained Electrician from Pakistan or India, send in his annual dues and be a MIElecE. So, there was a vast difference between MIMechE and MIElecE etc and it had little to do with whether one studied Electrical or Mechanical Engineering.

Also, I found it intriguing how you changed his qualification from first division BSc in Electrical Engineering in 1948 to a BSc in Physics and Chemistry in 1947. It is hard to imagine that the Pakistan Army, Bhutto, Tikka and Ghulam Ishaq Khan etc would have promoted an EME officer to the rank of major general in 1975 and put him in such a technically demanding position as you are suggesting, without at least a first division Bachelor's degree in engineering in addition to an MIMechE. In any case, I have provided references to his BSc and BSc in engineering. Although, it would be interesting to know how many generals from that period actually had the basic / minimal technical qualifications one would expect, i.e. MIMechE and a first division BSc in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering etc.

Bob chasm, per your comments above, I don't know exactly what you removed but "without references", no, information on Wikipedia (WP) pages won't stand, particularly if it is 'biographical' information. WP requires WP:verifiability.

As for PeerBaba (talk · contribs), if you look at their talkpage you will see that I have tried to engage them in discussion numerous times about their editing, and got virtually no response, apart from slow wp:Edit warring, see the edit history at Chagai-I, for examples.

If you want to get an editors attention you can use the {{ping}} or similar templates. PeerBaba would not have received any WP:Notifications by just mentioning their username. Regards 220 of ^Borg 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: PeerBaba has vandalized this article. He has removed all the references and material I had provided, then substituted it with fabricated stuff. For example, he claims the subject’s father was a cab driver in India. His father was actually a part of the landed aristocracy in India and a well known Senior Sessions Judge in British India. In fact, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan was also a member of the landed aristocracy of India and had clerked for our subject’s father.

Similarly notice the claim that PeerBaba claims that this two star general who was the Director General and Chairman of the Ordnance Factories Board was also working as a technician who was using lathes and a CNC machine to make weapons!

PeerBaba also claims that the subject is burried in Karachi. This is not true.

Similarly he claims that subject went by the nickname Anis Nawab or Anis Ali Nawab. There was a Brigadier Anis was another officer. However, he was a Brigadier not a General.

Bob chasm (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	"This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated." For your industrious and untiring contributions to Wikipedia. Keep it up! Faizan (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Faizan (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Edit summaries

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! 220 of ^Borg 03:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signing messages

Bobchasm, when add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 03:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previewing suggestion

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 03:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries please!

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks!

Bob chasm, you are doing a lot of edits to particular pages and not giving a single edit summary. For example almost 2,500 edits in a row at Syed Ali Nawab, (which you created) with almost zero summaries. I assume good faith, but this raises suspicions. Consider creating a page like this as a wp:DRAFT, that way it can be developed before moving to wp:mainspace. 220 of ^Borg 06:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bob chasm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]