User talk:Muhandes

TUSC token e80b809c8cc344eed212d9db46506234

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Fastenal

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maybe this should be posted in edit warring? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Peppino D'Agostino's Wiki Page

Dear Muhandes,

I am hoping you can help me to better understand what has happened to my clients Wiki page. I noticed you were active in editing Peppino's page in the history tab so I thought I would contact you for direction.

At one point I had a nice description of Peppino on his Wiki page along with his discography and a full set of his official links (I just added the links again today) and a picture. Now it is very bare with almost nothing that I had originally placed remaining.

His page is also noted as a "stub". Again, that was not my original posting and I don't know how it got changed around so dramatically. I'd like to build it back out with Peppino's official information. I am not a person that fully understands how to post/use Wiki, but as Peppino's personal manager worldwide, I need to assure that the current and correct information is presented on his Wiki site and that it is represented clearly and concisely.

Again, any help you could provide me in getting his wiki page set up is greatly appreciated.

Best Regards, Brad Stewart Dynamic Artists Management, LLC Personal Manager and agent for Peppino D'Agostino http://www.dynamicartists.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfkatana (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As Peppino's manager, you should not edit his page at all due to your conflict of interest. I'm going to leave you a comment in your own talk page with some guidelines to read about it.

As for the external links, they are against Wikipedia's external links policy, so I had to remove them. I'm not sure about the rest of the material, I will check it when I have the time, I am now on a vacation with limited (and costly) Internet access. --Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the page's history and I can't find any version which includes more information. this is the version from your last edit on September 2010 and this is the one from your edit before that on August 2008. As you can see they are both very similar to the current one (minus the links of course). --Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Muhandes. Thank you for your time on Peppino's Wiki page. There use to be more information. I have no idea what happened to it and can't explain why the history does not reflect it. I am a laymen when it comes to working with Wikipedia. That's one reason I am slightly confused about what can be posted. For example, the external links, some I understand as not being allowed and why, such as the links to other guitarists, but all the MySpace and YouTube links were official links that are controlled by Peppino. It is my understanding that those links are allowed and I see them on many other artists pages such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Girls#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_emmanuel#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny#External_links These external sites have a number of "more information" type links, but also have other official sites such as MySpace, etc., etc. Why were Peppino's MySpace and other official external sites removed?

I'd also like to have a link to imdb.com as Peppino has a page there too. Many others have that as well.

The write up that was pulled from Peppino's page was noted as being a copyrighted work by someone else, namely Favored Nations, when in reality, Peppino owns the copyright and we gave Favored Nations the right to use it. This also supports that there was more information posted at one time, because of the fact that it was pulled due to an erroneous concern of copyright. I just really want to get his Wiki page filled out more so that it better represents his body of work and history of his career, but I am fearful that anything I might put up will be taken down.

Thank you again for your time.

Sfkatana (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sfkatana.

In general, the existence of other pages which do not follow policy and guidelines is not an acceptable argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFF if you are interested in knowing why. WP:ELNO #10 explicitly forbids "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." I may remove these from the pages you indicated, or you may do so yourself, stating WP:ELNO #10 as the reason. An IMDB link is acceptable, I added that.

What you say about copyright may well be the case, but Wikipedia can't use copyrighted material without permission. You should read about requesting copyright permission to understand what such a permission will require, and Peppino (or whomever is the real owner) can use the standard Declaration of consent. I recommend to add an explanation as to why another entity (Favored Nations) claims copyright. You are correct in assuming that what appears to be copyrighted material can be removed in such a way as to remove no trace - it is policy to do so.

You are also right in assuming anything you might put up (except minor edits) will most likely be taken down. As you have a very clear conflict of interest you should not edit the page except for minor edits. Instead, make suggestions at the article's talk page, and another editor will review and edit. I have the page on my watchlist so it would probably (but not necessarily) be me.

I hope this helps you. --Muhandes (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Updation of IIM Raipur

Dear Sir,

I have been trying to update the IIM Raipur wiki page but there seems to be some mistake that I have been doing due to which you are not allowing it to get updated. I have seen your talk but was unable to decipher the mistake I was committing. I would be grateful if you could help me update the page as it is critical to the institute. I have all the references that are required to substantiate whatever I have written.

Thanks and Regards

Kvrk5000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvrk4000 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Though your edits were in good faith, they introduced many errors; some of them being introducing credentials to names like "Dr. or Prof."; also, you introduced wikilinks to IIM Raipur in the article itself, hence creating some cyclic redirects. You also removed some text from the lead section without explanation. Lynch7 09:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lynch. I would also add that the edit also introduced some unacceptable external links and removed some cases where an abbreviation needed to be introduced. All in all, there were so many problems that, also I did accept it was in good faith, I had no option but to revert. I would be happy to assist in correcting any mistakes in the article. If you are unsure how to do it, state what you want to be done in the article's talk page. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked. Two different editors explained the problem. Yet you continue. Why ask then? --Muhandes (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit war. I am a newbie to Wikipedia and I did not know how to use the talk page. I thought I was doing something wrong and I was trying to do correct it every time. Now I have read how to use the talk page. Thanks for offering to help me with the page. I would like to update it with the happenings in the last one year. I need your help in this. Thank you very much in advance. Kvrk4000 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to hear, lets put the past behind us and start afresh.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of policies and guidelines to keep, so indeed it is hard for new editors. It's best to start with small steps. One of the most important things is verifiability. For everything you may want to add you need a reliable source. What kind of material would you like to add and what is the source? --Muhandes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

GCS Lahore

I have given the references from the offical website of Government College of Science, Wahdat Road Lahore about the history, programs the sports and co-curricular activities then why have you removed it?--Board Topper (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the version of the article as you left it on August 5th. Where exactly are the sources? I noticed that you added sources now, which is nice, although the website seems to be down at the moment. I corrected some Manual of Style violations and removed some material which the guideline discourages, and left you a note on your talk page with the relevant guidelines. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The website is not down. U can see the website and the programs are listed on the website but I don't know why have you removed them?--Board Topper (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was very clear on the edit summary, why don't you read it before querying me over and over again? Here is the exact edit summary: per WP:UNIGUIDE "do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section." Read that guideline, it is all there. --Muhandes (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Institute of Career Development

Your PROD at Institute of Career Development has been removed. You may wish to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it qualify for G5? --Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the article history. It was in fact created by User:Board Topper on August 7, and not as the history suggests. See logs--Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realized, you mistakenly restored 28 revisions which were from both versions. Or was this on purpose? --Muhandes (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about mistakenly restoring the old revisions, so I have re-deleted them. However, it does not qualify for G5 because the user was not blocked or banned when the article was deleted: the block came a little over three hours after the creation of the article. That, in fact, was why I reverted my own G5 deletion. I'm afraid if you want it deleted it will have to be AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought G5 was exactly for such cases. The creator of the article is User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal, using the User:Board Topper as a sock. User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal was blocked at the time. Otherwise, how can a blocked user create an article? I am not trying to say you are wrong, I am just trying to understand what G5 means. Secondly, the PROD was removed because there was already one PROD. But that was wrong, there was no previous PROD, just a mistaken history. Wouldn't this qualify for restoring at least the PROD? --Muhandes (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have managed to make several mistakes on this one case. Perhaps I'm tired. I saw that the current indefinite block on User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal dated from 14:32, 7 August 2011, but I failed to notice that there was already a 1 week block in force before then. I have deleted the article under CSD G5: you were perfectly right. The PROD, however, is more complicated. A previous version of the article had been deleted following a PROD, and if a new editor had created a new version of the article it could be taken as in effect contesting the PROD after the event, in which case it could not be PRODDED again. There is room for argument about whether it is a different article which just happens to have the same name, so that it can be PRODDED, but there is enough of a case for saying that it can't to make me reluctant to delete an article in that situation unless it seems to me to be a really clear-cut case of a very different article with the same title. However, none of that matters in this case, as the G5 speedy deletion applies. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks a lot ... from WikiProject Education in India naveenpf (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction

I have merged Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction to the author. Since the author has an article and is notable, there is no reason to lose the information of his book. I merged with the book section of his article. If merging can be done, it should be done. Joe Chill (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The material was taken verbatim from here, so it might be a copyright violation to use it in this form. But do as you wish. --Muhandes (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be simple to rephrase so that it isn't a copyvio or plagiarism. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"The customs of Christianity have changed through a series of obstacles into what they are now. Miraza Tahir Ahmad chose to write about the current Christian beliefs by examining them through logic and reason. A variety of Christian beliefs are discussed in this book." Good enough? Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is redundant, but I don't really mind. My entire point was that a merge in this case would not be appropriate since there was no valid material in the article to merge. --Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I edited the sentence for conciseness. Feel free to revert/edit if you think I lost any of the meaning. --Muhandes (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Island lighthouse

Hi,

I made a change to the article about the Mona Island Lighthouse and you reverted it, so here's my explanation, hoping that you'll update the information. Unfortunately, I don't know Wikipedia well enough to add the references myself.

During research for a publication on the lighthouses of Puerto Rico, I stumbled on the claim that the tower of the Mona Island Lighthouse was designed by Gustave Eiffel. Further research on the subject led to the publication of a paper earlier this year. The two references that you cite supporting the Eiffel claim are repeating the myth, whose origin we've not been able to determine so far.

Cordially,

José A. Mari Mutt Professor University of Puerto Rico ay Mayagüez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamarimutt (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit since you did not provide a source, and as you now provided the source I reinstated the material. I think the cause of refuting the myth is better served by mentioning it and saying it is wrong, than by ignoring it. That way we can be sure other editors who see the two facts can see which one is better supported by evidence for themselves. Can you supply the volume/issue for that publication? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding the Mona Island Lighthouse, the name of the journal is Lighthouse Digest and the issue is January/February 2011. I first wrote on the subject in my blog, the article with Sandra Shanklin came later. My blog entry is in Spanish bot you can look at it and do a Google Translate if you wish.

Thanks,

José — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamarimutt (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, that's what I used anyway. I thought they might be using the volume/issue format as well, but month/year will suffice. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Educational institutions in states and union territories of India

Your comments are invited for building consensus and finalising the format at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_India#State_Lists_Format. Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I commented. --Muhandes (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at a source

This was brought up at a GA review and the reviewer isn't sure whether this would constitute as a reliable source or not. According to the body article on the WikiProject Albums page, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Seeing as how this guy has interviewed with producers and musicians, it looks to me like a music journalists, but I would like an objective opinion before I jump to conclusion. The article in question is Todo a Su Tiempo (Marc Anthony album). Thanks. Erick (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be forced to give an opinion, from a quick look he does not look like a professional music journalist or DJ. However, I am probably not the person to ask about professional music journalists, especially not Latin music ones. --Muhandes (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well okay, thanks for your input. Erick (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Links on the Vestal Watches Article

Hey! Just a note, vestalwatches.org is not the official website for Vestal Watch. Please refer to the Whois.[1]. The official site for Vestal is vestalwatch.com.[2]. Thanks! --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the official website was hacked and it now serves malicious software. We might want to just remove all links for now, per WP:ELNO #3. --Muhandes (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep agree. --Yankees76 ^Talk 14:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for welcome and a question

Dear Wiki expert, as you can tell, I'm rookie, and will look to you for guidance. I presently have a simple question. Please look at he page Fellow of the AAAS. It seems to me some people use it to advertise so and so has been elected Fellow. At the bottom there is already a link to all the names. There is also an official AAAS link, http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/fellows/ that list all the active Fellows. I'm puzzled what people are doing to this page, and that it is seemingly not policed (maybe not meant to be). --QES girl (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It was quite cleverly hidden, as most people will never click sources if an article appears well cited. I removed most of the sources which were unnecessary, but had to leave one as it was the only source for the fact "The association has awarded fellowships since 1874", which I could not find in official sources.

This thing aside, articles aren't really "policed". Some people watch over some articles. Many articles aren't watched by anyone, especially if the subject has no much interest. This article was created in 2006. In March 2009 someone added these so called "sources". No one noticed, and no one probably cared. --Muhandes (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls double check Hon-Yim Ko page

Appreciate your meticulous caution. I have found an old old document for his high school graduation (1957!), and added to inline citation. --QES girl (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am 5 minutes from leaving for vacation but I quickly replaced the reference with an inline citation. --Muhandes (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Enjoy your vacation. I also follow your other advice to reformat external links to become inline citations.--QES girl (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Muhandes. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in India.
Message added 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ack. --Muhandes (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To cheer you up after all your hard work at WP:INEI, especially List of universities in India. :)

Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Muhandes. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_India.
Message added 09:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ack --Muhandes (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations on QES page

Dear Sir, FYI -- I was able to find a good number of refs, incl. some from way back in 1957. I'll put each ref on each person's Wiki bio, instead of on this school page, because it is misleading for readers of this page to see that someone won a high school scholarship and might be deemed "notable". All the notability criteria are to be satisfied on the person's bio page otherwise his/her page should be deleted. That is, many readers may not understand the Wiki requirements on notability, and probably don't care. --QES girl (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is not there for notability, it is there for verifiability. Notability is satisfied by having an article. Verifiability, that is, verifying that the person is indeed an alumnus, is required by inline citation. That is, the source must appear next to the fact, in the school article. --Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying.--QES girl (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Muhandes, I'm a QES alumnus, and thus have more than passing interest. On this list of citations, I think you may have applied an overkill interpretation of the intent of verification. As long as the names are verified on their bio pages, it should be sufficient. E.g., see those big lists like MIT_alumni, or List_of_UC_Berkeley_faculty. It is impractical to list a citation for each name. That seems to be the whole point that each name should have a Wiki profile. I would propose to delete those citations.--Kgwu24 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

First, just to clarify the policies we are dealing with, a stand alone list and a list in an article are two different things. Stand alone lists are governed by WP:Source list while lists within articles are governed by WP:NLIST. However, both of the policies are very similar when it comes to sources. I will quote from WP:NLIST since this is the one relevant to this case: "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group". The source must be on the same article since the target article can be changed and the source removed. In fact, it is a principle of Wikipedia that every article is standalone. Yes, other pages which are incorrect exist, but this does not make it right. This is not "an overkill interpretation", nor is it my interpretation – it is something which was checked for consensus many times and the result is always the same – an extremely wide consensus. Trust me on this one – I have done this on hundreds of articles already. Alumni lists must always have inline citations for verifiability. Notability is the only thing which is waved if the subject has an article.--Muhandes (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. The literal observance of even the most important rules is not always necessary to accomplish the desired effect. The way we determine the interpretation of a rule --even so extremely basic and important a rule as WP:V--is to look at examples: I first turn to my own alma maters,. [List of University of California, Berkeley alumni]] -- very few are referenced, mostly because a quotation is included. Ditto for List of Brooklyn College alumni, and Midwood High School#Notable alumni. Looking at some other famous places, List of Princeton University people, List of University of Chicago alumni, List of University of Iowa people, List of Oberlin College alumni, List of University College London people BPeople from a place are more often but not always, cited, because the nature of the connection is not always obvious, see List of people from Brooklyn, New York or even the somewhat smaller Albany, Western Australia#Notable current and former residents. I think this pretty much proves what we do here.

So we've seen the way the rule is interpreted; now here's the explanation for it: Specific inline references, even for BLP, are only necessary if the matter is reasonably questioned or controversial or negative. True, anyone can question anything, but it's usually considered a little pointy to do so for the obvious. Remember that the appropriate source for routine facts about a person's bio is normally there own official web site--third party sources are needed only if there is some reason to doubt it. Thus, 95% of the time the source for the information will be pretty obvious. Inline sources are only necessary if the matter is in some way questionable or challenged. The usual reason something like this is challenged is if the school is in some way disreputable and the implication for the bio is negative, as if a politician is listed as the alumnus of a diploma mill-- or, to a lesser extent, if the person is disreputable, and the implication for the school is negative, as if a notorious swindler is the alumnus of a business school. There are also a few cases where a person will be a matter of so much interest that every fact of their life is argued , as with some people in popular entertainment--for an example see List of Berklee College of Music alumni, where most of the individuals are individually cited. If you're going to go by authority --"trust me"-- I too have worked on many alumni lists , although most of my debating on this issue at BLPN etc. is with much more controversial matters about people than what school they went to--for such things as sexual orientation , we do insist on online sourcing.

I can however see that there might possibly be a question if the institution is relatively unknown; the QES is not relatively unknown, but it is unfamiliar to many of us. As not that many people are involved, there would be no work in adding them, & it's not worth it to always stand on principle if the practical effect in a given situation is trivial.

I really urge you to work on sourcing the really questionable issues; for routine facts, the simplest way is the better. But if you really want to discuss it further, the RSN is the appropriate place--though i think you will find it was discussed there a few times previously. The BLP noticeboard is an alternative, but that is usually devoted to specific cases. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotally speaking, after finding a certain President of India as alumnus of three different institutes which did not even exist when he was at the relevant age, I learned that when it comes to alumni lists, they are all controversial. They add very little to the article, so if someone does want to add them, at least make sure they are correct. You may argue that I am wasting my time (and urge me not to), but once I challenge the correctness of a fact, I think there is a very wide consensus that it must be sourced.

But we are digressing. This wasn't even about the need for sources. Chronologically speaking, I saw a list in a sorry state, I cleaned it up a bit and asked for sources, the sources were found, and in my opinion the list looks much better now. The only issue here was with inline citations. I am a bad Wikilawyer, so I don't know what do quote, but my humble experience suggests that each article should be self contained, and the sources should remain in the article. That was the main point I was trying to convey. --Muhandes (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Applying the rule you quoted, "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group", the reliable source is one click away on the person's bio page, which is the hub for all info regarding that person. I like DGG's advice to adhere to the simplest way, otherwise you seem to imply that one part of Wiki does not trust another part. Anyway, to you two Wiki experts, how do we proceed to elevate this to a higher admin level to arbitrate? Should I contact an admin? Is there a kind of appeals court like the judicial process? --Kgwu24 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me see that I understand what you are suggesting. If I understand correctly you are proposing that in an article about educational institute (or is this proposal for all articles?) that has an alumni list (or is this proposal for all lists of people?), and already includes inline citations, we should remove those citations because they are not aesthetic. I must say this is a novel idea. There is (what I believe to be) a minority who think that in some cases (see e.g. this discussion regarding US communities) a source is not required in case the target article has one, but even from them I never heard a request that once a source was provided, it should be removed. If you want to take this further, depending on how wide your proposal is, you can try to achieve consensus at WT:UNI, WT:EDUCATION or maybe WT:BIO. DGG above suggested WP:RSN though if I understand your proposal correctly I don't see how it applies.--Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No sir, it's not about aesthetics. It's about misleading casual readers, especially students, who would misunderstand, as well said by QES girl when she first chose to put the citations in the bio pages. I am also not proposing to delete the citations, but to undo what you did. That is exactly why they have an "undo" option here. Please, please hear us out, from 3 persons. An objective 3rd party put it very well this way, "Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material." Please put your energy to catch questionable stuff, rather than fussing over items that are not questionable. With your great editing skills, why not help clean up those big-ticket pages like MIT or Harvard. You have all the wherewithal to be a big hero. No, I cannot speak in general terms about all lists. I only focus on this one page, my Alma Mater page, which I care. Please, we plead with you.--Kgwu24 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, I thought of an easy way out of this impasse. Since one major concern was the possible misleading of students to misread the high school achievements as reason for notability, I think I should change all captions to be neutral stmts attesting to the fact that they graduated from QES in such such year. I think that should work. Hope to get your endorsement to this scheme.--QES girl (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

if you have references that someone graduated in a particular year, you have enough of a reference to list them in an alumni list by any standard. Such information is more useful in a list. Look at the list for Berkeley: it mentions a few particularly famous people in paragraph form, and then goes on to a very long list of the notable. This manner of presentation is independent of how or where the references are located. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

but if the reference is already present in the list, do not undo it for aesthetic reasons. I think most people here, including myself, would consider that a little disruptive, almost as disruptive as removing a person because it is cited only in the article about them. We do not impose our preferences on others here when the matter is relatively indifferent.

now, back to Muhandes' objections. Certainly there are errors. The error information and documentation belong in the article about the person. if the information there is wrong, it should be corrected there and then the links checked, to get them to match. The bio article is the focus and the one to work on correcting. A person may of course be an alumnus of several different schools. There is no consensus about whether alumnus refers to attended, or graduated; we customarily deal with this by assuming graduated, and specifying attended when necessary. Many colleges dependent on financial contributions from the alumni consider everyone who ever attended as an alumnus; if the person is famous enough for the distinction to matter here--as if a college lists someone as an alumnus, and the person himself does not because he disliked the place, it gets discussed in the article about them, & just what to say is resolved on the talk p. This is often evaded in Wikipedia by wordingthe list "people associated with...." which avoids the need for such quibbling. I consider QES girl's stand the correct and usual one--if anyone wants to make it more restrictive, it is their burden to try to change our interpretation. Policy and guidelines are what we consistently do, and what we do is accept the information being in the person's article as sufficient, and the examples prove it. This, as with any other interpretation of rule, can change here at any time if there is consensus for it. I continue to think you'd do better resolving actual problems. We really need that sort of work. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No sir, don't worry, absolutely no disruption nor deletion, just minor change of wording, e.g., instead of saying that Li graduated at the top of class, just say he graduated in that class. It turned out that Wah was a good template. He was least brilliant as a student, but became most outstanding in his career -- a classic late bloomer, and a wonderful inspiration -- PhD from UC Berkeeley, your Alma Mater's toughest EECS Dept..--QES girl (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll drink to that. You certainly would take away my biggest concern.--Kgwu24 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be offended, but it is mildly amusing that this was all about the wording of the footnote. I did not even notice the footnote text until you just said it was your major concern. The title used for the footnote is very often the title of the book "Graduation book 1957" or something like that, and as long as the link seems valid, I tend to ignore it. Anyway, if this works for everyone, lets close this and go do other things with out time. --Muhandes (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you get the point articulated by DGG. He gave you plenty of examples. If you didn’t get it, try fixing Technion alumni list according to your doctrine. After that, you may consider Obama’s Alma Mater, Occidental College. And if you still have energy left, try my Alma Mater Carlton College. A friend of mine once said, “Unfortunately, Wiki processes are often taken hostage by a few anal characters.” I find that mildly amusing. Oh, please don’t be offended by her. She gave up on Wiki already.--Kgwu24 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I simply do not agree with DGG, and I don't feel like arguing the point when there is nothing to gain from it and plenty of other things to do. Thank you for your suggestions on where to spent my editing time, but no thanks, I have other things to do. And besides, I never edit my own Alma Mater articles, nor institutes I am, or was, affiliated to. I just don't trust myself to be completely neutral. --Muhandes (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. M, I have a couple friends from QES, thus took an interest in this discussion. In addition to famous MIT, Technion, etc. cited as examples, I randomly went to a few more pages, incl. Israel institutions cited in the Technion article:- Bronx Science, Smith College, Wesleyan College, Pui Ching Middle School, Oklahoma Baptist University, Weizmann Institute, Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University,Bowdoin College, Davidson College. These are lists within a school article, not stand-alone lists. So far I have found none that applied your doctrine. Can you give us some examples from the hundreds of pages that you were involved in? Much obliged.--EJohn59 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag is not an issue

Hi..Flag in info box is not an issue and it is used as a symbol for many wikipedia's for example u can see Mohammad Rafi for the instance..so please abstain from reverting my edits.Thanx Umair Aj (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed that one too. MOS:FLAG is very clear about this - no flag icons in infoboxes. --Muhandes (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For Those About to Rock

I have yet again corrected the song title to "Put the Finger on You". This is the correct title. Before you tell me to go and "do my research", I'll tell you that I have 18 copies of this album from all over the world, including the original US, UK and Australian pressings, and all of them have this title. Here's the German first pressing [3] and see how the website makes the same mistake - can't even read the record label on their own page. The CD image that you linked to is either a misprint (it happens - I have also seen "Put My Finger on You" and "Put the Finger on Yo") or a pirate pressing, of which there are at least a dozen known. You'll see that I linked to a similar picture with the correct title on the talk page a couple of years ago, and the vast majority of CDs and LPs on a google image search show the correct version. Allmusic contains plenty of mistakes (who the hell have they got as composers of "Breaking the Rules" on the page you linked to? Chronic unreliability), but if you want to link to the "I Put the Finger on You" "version" in the footnote under the track listing, go ahead. You linked there to the correct version on Allmusic - seems they can't even decide which title they like best. Here is the official AC/DC website page with the correct track listing, and this was a fairly fundamental piece of "research". This obviously trumps any contradictory stuff Allmusic might come up with, and proves that the other version is an error. Official is official. [4] Nothing personal, I have much respect for the work you do on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here [5] is a webpage with images of 27 different CDs from various countries, showing the track listings on their back sleeves and on the discs themselves. All show "Put the Finger on You". Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you write is OK, I am far from claiming any deep knowledge in this or anything related to music. I apologize if "do my research" was offending. My point was that instead of the edit summary "Screw Allmusic", put all information for the reader to decide, even if it is just in a footnote. I feel that even if the alternative version is a printing error, the fact that discogs has at least one version on file with "I" with a photo, and allmusic lists it too, is enough for it to be mentioned. But that's up to you.--Muhandes (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem - "Screw Allmusic" really wasn't the best edit summary I've ever written, so apologies for that. I agree that a footnote about the other version is a good idea, and I'm happy with the version we have now with the reference you've added. I've done a bit of investigation, and there seem to be a small number of versions with the "I", seemingly recent examples from the US. I'd say the total number of this variant constitutes around 5-10% of all releases, so it's worth putting the footnote in. There's a similar situation with a track on Back in Black, so I'll do the same thing there. All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'm happy we agree. --Muhandes (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports in Brooklyn

Muhandes,

Why is a serious 5-year-old sport, with 3 years of league and 5 teams in NYC not notable?! It EXISTS, it's been played on high level, is gaining rapid ground in the US, and is picked up in Europe too. Over a 100 people in Brooklyn are seriously involved in this sports. Removing it with your kind of remark is a joke.

best wishes, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.164.176 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are User:Takinen, please remember to log in.

As for the sport, if it's notable, start an article about it and demonstrate notability: show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Putting a section in Sports in Brooklyn is not the way to go to demonstrate notability. --Muhandes (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you please visit the talk page of Patna University to respond to my query. arunbandana 07:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

Sure thing, comments added there. --Muhandes (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of notable faculty

Your deletion of R C Prasad from notable faculty smacks of complete bias. I can prove that it does meet the guidelines universally accepted all over the world. You may have the authority to delete here. But the knowledge is not the property of only you and wikipedia. 117.207.155.137 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC) arunbandana 08:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bias you are talking about, I'd delete any person without an article, unless notability is demonstrated. I do this in a completely unbiased manner. The best way to demonstrate notability is to create an article. WP:ACADEMIC is the relevant guideline to show notability of an academic. Good luck. --Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as Shamshad Hussain is concerned I shall have to do some more research before I prove his notability. But I am sure I can do that because he has written more than one book. However I am quite sure of Dr R C Prasad's notability by the number of books that he has got published by some of the well known publishers like Motilal Banarsidas and I had given more than one reference to support the content about him that you have deleted. Now I think it is your moral responsibily also to verify and act. For God's sake do not treat this as an example that you had quoted regarding the false degrees of a president of India that someone may have added somewhere. Let me also share with you that a lot of bad content is being added to the articles of wiki. At least I am sure about one. Anyway I don't still understand why my content on R C Prasad should be deleted? arunbandana 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

What do you think of the reference that I had provided in order to demonstrate and support R C Prasad's notability? arunbandana 10:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

My opinion remains that the best way to demonstrate notability is to create an article about the person. If you insist on doing it within an alumni list please peruse WP:ACADEMIC. It shows 9 different criteria that can be satisfied. Show with a reliable source that any of these 9 criteria are satisfied and you are done.

I'd like to add that this situation is quite absurd. For some time now I did not edit this article, nor did I care about it, nor was it on my watch list. It is you who asked for my comments and advice, which I gave to the best of my knowledge, capability and experience. Why ask for advise, if when that advice is given, you are then going to accuse me of bad faith? Do as you wish, write that David Cameron is faculty, Barack Obama is alumni, and Professor Whatsname Whodunnit, the well known etymologist, is both. If you need, I will personally create Whodunnit's webpage for you, with the 50 books he wrote, so you can quote it. See if I care. It is you who asked me what the correct way to include an alumni is. The correct way is to show notability and membership. For the two people I removed notability was not demonstrated (I did not check the other requirement). You know what, say the word, and I'm putting this article back on my "ignore forever" list. --Muhandes (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Please don't be upset in this context. I do have trust in your knowledge of how to use wikipedia. Let me share with you that Patna University happened to be one of the top ten universities of India some 25 years back and I know that because it was my alma mater during those days. You should also know that this article is of a very poor standard. It was me who started this subtitle of faculty. Right now there are only a few names in the list here. But I am quite confident that at least 25 such more professors of national/international fame can be included under this subtitle. You may see the name of R S Sharma, historian, in the article who passed away on 20 August 2011. He was one of the top few indologists in the world. This is not my opinion but this has been reported by most of the leading newspapers of the world recently. Incidentally I had included his name before his death. I have read the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and I am sure that Dr R C Prasad meets more than one, that is no. 1, 4,5 and 6.

So when I request you for guidance and you delete my content sweepingly without giving a chance, I feel you are quite unfair. arunbandana 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover any comparison of my content and the reference that I cited with the examples that you have given above of David Cameron or Barack Obama etc or the anecdote related to the Indian president are again unjustified. They also seem to convey that you have some fixed opinion about certain things. Sir, please have a look at the deleted content again. arunbandana 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs) arunbandana

This seems like one big misunderstanding. You seem to think that by removing a person I am saying you should not restore it. When all I was doing was bold editing, which is mostly encouraged – if one sees something wrong, one doesn't just start a discussion about it - one should be bold and fix it. By no mean does it say you are not to restore the person, with an additional source. In fact, you may not agree with my interpretation and restore the person without an additional source, but with an explanation in the edit summary why I am wrong (for example "source shows both notability and membership"). You don't need me to go over the material again.

But since you asked, I went over it again. For R. C. Prasad you gave a very good source that he is faculty, but did very little to demonstrate notability. Again, I think that the best way to demonstrate notability is to create an article about R. C. Prasad. Insisting on doing it in the list of faculty will require additional sources that demonstrate notability, which is less aesthetic in my opinion. But again, I am not stopping you from doing it. Rather than discussion it here with me, be bold and edit! --Muhandes (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. You may see the additional sources that I have added for him. arunbandana 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

You are welcome. As you can see, other editors are even less lenient than me and require an article as the only means to demonstrate notability (which is what I recommended in the first place). This is quite a common approach. --Muhandes (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional sourced added

Sir I have added citations to Ahmed Rushdi and I hope ref improve tag is no more required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.133.1 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Every single fact needs a source. I still see many unsourced facts. --Muhandes (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Infact if you read carefully the articles in the given citations, cover every fact. Now its not possible to repeat the sources again and again. what do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.133.1 (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, repeat the same sources again and again. Read WP:CITE on how to do that properly, you can reuse sources. There is no need to add it next to each and every word – if a single source can verify an entire paragraph or list, once at the end of the paragraph or at the beginning of the list is enough. Verifiabiliy is one of the most basic things in Wikipedia – a reader reading a fact should be able to verify it through a reliable source. You should tell the reader which of the sources verifies which fact. --Muhandes (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

All the awards ref are given in the singing career section even then if you want it, please go a head. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.133.1 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked and I did not find sources for most of them. Please stop removing the maintenance templates without adding full sources.--Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)