User talk:Truth aspirant
User:Truth Aspirant’s response
[edit]Dear SGBailey: First of all I appreciate your presence at Wikipedia as you seem to be the last hope to stop the worsening of this artcle and consequently Wikipedia by users like User:Wiki4u|Wiki4u and some other anonymous.
The response was not addressed to you and there was some confusion. Rather it was for those people who were abusing Wikipedia on the other hand, you are enhancing it and letting it grow in the right direction.
Wikipedia is happening every second - it's a phenomena that's going on because millions are involoved in it. However, it must be monitored to save it from biased entries and comments in its content.
I totally agree that there's a lot of margin for improvement in the said article to give it the flavour of encyclopedia article rather than going to either of the extremes. I hope that someone will come up and will change the tone of this article to be truly balanced and encyclopedic. However, what Wiki4u and some others are adding is only negative propaganda and not based on facts probably due to their personal issues with the said person. Please review their contributions and if found guilty please recommend a ban on them.
I hope that my response clears the misunderstanding that was created between you and me. My earlier response wasn't for you.
Thanks.
General advice
[edit]copied to Wiki4u
Thanks for your note. I'm not sure if this will help, but here are some general comments on the situation. There seem to be two issues of dispute here, both with a grain of truth.
1) I agree with Wiki4u that the current article has a promotional tone - much of its content repeats descriptions from the Jang Group website. I think it does need work to make it more neutral.
2) I think Truth Aspirant is correct in objecting to the critical material posted by Wiki4u. Personally I have no way to tell if its true or not. But from a Wikipedia viewpoint it's fair to question it purely because it's presented with no evidence.
The usual advice for getting out of this kind of situation is that everyone agrees to stick by Wikipedia guidelines: in this case, show civility, and cite sources. This war of insults will rapidly get both of you blocked - that's not a threat, just an observation (I'm not an admin). Guidelines are very specific about no personal attacks and no legal threats.
I can't help much more: Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman is not well documented in Western media, and this really needs handling by editors with knowledge of Urdu news sources. Tearlach 12:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)