Talk:Manora, Karachi

Shri Varun Dev Mandir on Manora beach

---

Please give some more information – a picture shall be an added advantage. --Bhadani 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

also the big kuchi bradri people live in manora,and one of big kuchi family name is raja family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiqraja1980 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manora, Karachi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921093443/http://www.allempires.com/EBooks/Default.asp?BookID=10 to http://www.allempires.com/EBooks/Default.asp?BookID=10&ChapterID=170
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718022559/http://www.limitless.ae/content/default.aspx to http://www.limitless.ae/content/default.aspx

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) 17:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

user A. Savin inserting own photos

Hi A. Savin. It seems that you have a misunderstanding regarding WP:NOTGALLERY. The photos do provide context to the subject of the article, so the inclusion of this section is supported by NOTGALLERY. Also, I do not agree that the images recently added are better quality than the existing ones in the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do not agree wrt quality, please explain for each picture why not. And regarding NOTGALLERY, I had already much smaller and better-captioned galleries reverted by other people with reference to NOTGALLERY [1] [2], so stop double standards, it's getting tiresome. --A.Savin (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As a group, the photos do not provide the same context and highlighting of architectural features as the other people's images you removed. Please stop your false allegations about double standards, I haven't even edited those articles. 1292simon (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again 1292simon please explain for each picture you are pushing via editwar into the gallery, how it is better. Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see above, I have already explained my reasoning. If you don't like the format of my explanation, that's your problem. Also, could you please apologise for your false accusation above about the double standards? 1292simon (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@1292simon: "I do not agree that the images recently added are better quality than the existing ones in the article" is not an explanation, it's kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --A.Savin (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's only one part of my two posts. Please read all of what I wrote, instead of cherry-picking parts to suit your agenda. So it seems you are not going to apologise for your false accusation about the double standards? That is quite disrespectful. 1292simon (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry for the "double standard" remark (perhaps it comes from the fact, that you and Dan arndt usually agreed with each other in discussions regarding my pictures, and this NOTAGALLERY argument was extensively used by them in the last few days; see above diffs, which are only two examples of several). But otherwise, I'm happy to repeat my request: Please explain for each picture you are pushing via editwar into the gallery, how it is better. Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (I guess a half-hearted apology is better than none at all...) Here are the reasons I previously stated why I am in favour of retaining these images: "The photos do provide context to the subject of the article, so the inclusion of this section is supported by NOTGALLERY. Also, I do not agree that the images recently added are better quality than the existing ones in the article. As a group, the photos do not provide the same context and highlighting of architectural features as the other people's images you removed." I hope this clarifies things for you? Which photo(s) specifically do you think should be removed from the article? 1292simon (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please specify, as you still didn't respond on each of the photos, except that you are convinced for all of them that my pictures are of worse quality?

Basically, the dispute is about the following pictures:

a)Picture of St Paul's Church: I tried to replace this one by this one. Because the former does not clearly show the church (half of it is Lighthouse and you can only see the side with the door, and this only partially), has less favourable lighting, completely distorted verticals. My photo is clearly free from these problems: has better quality, shows the church as complete as it's possible given the wall. In the article St. Paul's Church, Manora you even approved for the new photo so what's the problem, please?

b) Picture of the Varun Dev Temple: I tried to replace this one by this one with more favourable lighting and correct perspective, however in detail I see now that at the time the first picture was taken parts of the facade artwork were still in place, but meanwhile the decay has gone so far that there is just naked facade and no artwork left. So, be it.

That means, we can agree on replacing the St Paul's Church photo? --A.Savin (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for narrowing down to specific issues. Yes, I agree with using your St Paul's Church photo. 1292simon (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)