Talk:Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) on 25 February 2024. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Shameless WP:SOAPBOXING
editUser:Bolt Kjerag, your continued insertion of a self-proclaimed Proof of Electoral Fraud website of dubious origin as a reference despite repeated warnings and a protection request at 2024 Pakistani general election is threatening to ruin the credibility of this article. If you insist on POV-pushing this source, as seen with your obsession with highlighting this in the source code, I would have no choice but to file an ANI against you. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Alleged poisoning of Bushra Bibi
editThe alleged poisoning of Bushra Bibi on February 10 occurred two days after the elections on February 8. How is this incident connected to election fraud when Bibi wasn't even a candidate in the election? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- A certain IP editor has done this, maybe to push an agenda under a sock, but I really want to assume the best. VirtualVagabond (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it initially, but they reinstated it. My only recourse now is to initiate a discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve removed it since im not breaking the 3RR, this article shouldn’t be an epicentre of bias. VirtualVagabond (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it initially, but they reinstated it. My only recourse now is to initiate a discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Article has a few problems
editThe 2024 section has a few issues, mainly that because a certain editor seems like they may pushing a certain agenda, and may be POSSIBLY using a sock. And that the order of events is in a random order, it is clear whoever did this did not really care about presentation, and just dumped information as it went. I’m not blaming anybody for this, as I recognise a multitude of editors have been working hard on this article, and because of them, this article is way better off than what could have transpired. Just want to throw my two cents watching this article. VirtualVagabond (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Describing this article as having "a few problems" would be an understatement. The entire piece requires thorough review and rewriting at some point. They seem to be trying to associate every event with election fraud. In my opinion, an event should only be deemed part of election fraud if there is detailed coverage demonstrating its direct impact on the election outcome. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Has the offending IP been properly reported yet? Borgenland (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it could be attributed to my aura or some other factor, but historically, I haven't had much luck when reporting individuals, so I tend to avoid investing my time in such endeavors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reported them finally to ANI for NPA edits and WP:IDNHT and openly admitting to being a sock of that abominable offender. Borgenland (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it could be attributed to my aura or some other factor, but historically, I haven't had much luck when reporting individuals, so I tend to avoid investing my time in such endeavors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Has the offending IP been properly reported yet? Borgenland (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
PROD
edit@SheriffIsInTown where could I find a discussion for the deletion, I'd like to comment on it. Borgenland (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- PROD does not entail any discussion. If you plan to object and commit to thoroughly reviewing the entire article for accuracy, then I can transfer it to a discussion. Alternatively, if you wish to endorse it, we can leave it as-is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest take it to WP:AFD. SPEEDY is so harsh. --Saqib (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed: Please remove the prod tag and bring it to AfD. I object to the nomination per WP:DEPROD.
- Why it should be changed: It has been objected and for controversial article like this, it is best to discuss it first.
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): WP:DEPROD
103.178.52.8 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Already done PianoDan (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)