Category talk:Districts of Pakistan

from User_talk:Tobias Conradi

Please don’t add article of District related to Pakistan directly in their respective Provinces. Check all the sub cats in District of Pakistan cat before editing, also their talk pages. --Spasage 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

but that's were they belong to. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you carefully see the arrangement of Category, we are not putting district article in main category. I am sorry to say, but you should consult and read talk pages and observe how cat is arranged before making changes. There are many people who are working in these cats for some time, and they all reviewed it and endorsed it. You are simply changing everything which comes into your way (it seems). I don’t know how to be polite but please make sure that you talk with people who are active in this area before making such huge changes. I am reverting all the changes you made in cat, I am leaving changes you made elsewhere. Please first discuss before making these fundamental changes. Also, I think this conversation belongs to your page. This is not the issue in District of Pakistan page. --Spasage 08:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you carefully see arrangement of cats in en:WP and read the relevant guidelines you would maybe change your opinion. Pakistan districts should IMO not be treated different to other stuff in WP. Even if the people you call "we" have another opinion - it is against official WP guideline. Why should pakistani districts not follow this? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * we are not putting district article in main category
 * who is "we"? I do it.
 * I am sorry to say, but you should consult and read talk pages and observe how cat is arranged before making changes.
 * which millions of talk pages shall I read in your opinion?.
 *  There are many people who are working in these cats for some time,
 * I am one of them.
 * Where were you when this cat was arranged first time. This is first time I saw you editing. You are like buldozing everything done. Please first explain what you want and after it edit it. --Spasage 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where were you when this cat was arranged first time.
 * what has this to do with the cats and enWP guidelines?
 * This is first time I saw you editing.
 * so what?
 * Please first explain what you want and after it edit it.
 * for every of my edit in WP, you want me to explain in advance what I want? - I will not do this.


 * What is WP, and other abbreviations you are using? I am very sorry to say, but it seems that you are here to destroy everything done so far. Please be more engaging and constructive. It is open for all. But when you edit, see what others have done. Unilateralism is not way to go. --Spasage 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is WP
 * wikipedia
 * and other abbreviations you are using? 
 * which others? en = english, read ISO 639-1
 * I am very sorry to say, but it seems that you are here to destroy everything done so far.
 * Why are you sorry. Is it to hide the attaking nature of your comments? you removed the cats, not me. so you are the destroyer, not me.
 * Please be more engaging and constructive.
 * Why more? Why do you want to tell others how they spend their time? WP is not all in my life. I will decide by myself how much time I spent in contributing and "engaging".
 * But when you edit, see what others have done. 
 * What do you mean? What pages shall I look up in your opinion, before making an edit to WP?
 * Unilateralism is not way to go.
 * if the unilateral acts are according to WP guidelines - why is this not a way to go?