Talk:Aligarh Muslim University

Request for info about Iqbal Khan

Iqbal Khan of HSBC is also an Aligarh University Graduate. Can somebody add him too?

Can we get some more information about Mr. Iqbal Khan of HSBC and his contribution to world at large. Adnan Syed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.36 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

copy and paste?

Google search link --Diwas (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not evident what this link means. Could the next person who checks this either clarify this or delete it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ALMU-logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ALMU-logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced promotional crap has no place in Wikipedia articles

There has been an attempt to reinsert large quantities of unsourced nonencylopedic content into the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a web hosting service for the University . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight, duplicative coverage and violation of Summary Style

Including the table to heads of state alumni is inappropriate due to all of the reasons listed in this section title. Serves no purpose in this article other than being one of many attempts in to inflate the reputation of the University and utilize Wikipedia as a web host promotional brochure for the University at the expense of being an appropriate encyclopedic coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, next time in the case of a conflict, be in your limits! What is this? First you prevented me and other users, as the table was not referenced (large quantities of unsourced nonencylopedic content)! That was a good move! But now! When all the References have been added, then you are objecting with other reasons! Where were these reasons before? You are just looking for a chance to object, when these reasons will be addressed, then you may come up with new reasons, against the table!

1. Undue weight: This is not a proper reason, as the table is a fact! Only Factual Reference are there from Reliable sources, so this cannot be termed as "Undue weight";
2. Duplicative Coverage: What? Duplicative coverage? "Google Books" also does duplicative coverage? Mr.TheRedPenOfDoom! Atleast belive in the Google Books!;
3. Violation of Summary Style: Where did this violation occur? Do you want to say that all tables in the Wikipedia or any encyclopedia be removed?(As they violate the style)
4. Non-Encyclopedic Content: It is not a non-encylopedic content! This table is also found on many other Universities' alumni article, have a look at

• Harvard University,
• Michigan University,
• Phoenix University

So it cannot be termed as non-encylopedic content at all! I Hope that the conflict will get solved soon. Faizan (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1) even "facts" if placed in the improper articles in the improper manner can and do constitute violations of WP:UNDUE weight. simply being "true" or "sourced" is not sufficient rationale for inclusion in an article, it is merely one of the criteria that must be met. the content of the article must be appropriate for inclusion in that particular article.

2) yes, the content is duplicative of what is found in List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government

3) your very examples show that the alumni lists are NOT included in the University article they are included in the List of Alumni articles

4) I have never said that all tables in wikipedia need to be removed, but yes most of them are actually completely unnecessary and in violation of the WP:TABLES guidelines. Violations in other articles are not good reasons to continue violations in additional articles, in addition there are issues of WP:MOSFLAG

5) WP:SUMMARY " A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." There is no way that a duplicative table containing only the heads of state portion of the List of alumni could ever be considered to meet that description of how articles are supposed to relate to each other and be summarized and linked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1) These are FACTS, and they don't violate any of the rules, and undue weight definition does not fit here! It is the proper table,

2) the content is duplicative, but the whole article has not been copied! Just the table has been duplicated as it's important

3) Then whats here? 1, 2, 3, All of these have an article separate for Alumni, and also a sub-article in the main article! See the University Articles!

4) Which most of them? They don't violate, or else they had been removed! And regarding A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The subtopic is already on its separate article, but some of the content is to be used for this sub-section, otherwise using the main article template only is not enough! Other Universities also have content about Alumi in their main articles! Faizan (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on appropriate summary style

Is the appropriate summary of List of notable Aligarh Muslim University alumnies to include in this article a cut and paste copy of the table from this section List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government?

• No it is not. The appropriate summary per WP:SUMMARY would in fact be a summary of the whole article of alumni and not merely a cut and paste table exactly regurgitating only one portion of the article it is supposed to be summarizing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, the table is fine, putting a table instead of text is not a crime or violation of Wikipedia's rules. Cut and paste content are also found in other Universites, such as: Harvard University, University of Michigan, University of Phoenix. It is not necessary to write the alumni in text. Faizan (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables tables should only be used in specific situations when text or simple lists are not appropriate 2) even if other articles have "cut and paste" content, that is not a valid explanation for why using only a single cut and paste section from the alumni article in this article is a valid summary for this article, but none even if that didnt apply, none of your "examples" actually contains "cut and paste" content from the alumni article. 3) While it might theoretically be possible to summarize the alumi article in a table, the table being reinserted is not that table (plus see 1.) )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables statement but why here, the simple lists are not appropriate?, and regarding your comment: none of your "examples" actually contains "cut and paste" content from the alumni article, So I want to clarify that from these examples, I just want to explain that the sub-section of Alumni in the main Article exists in these Universities' Articles. I have nothing to do with "copy-paste" Faizan (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is disputing that other university articles may or may not have subsections about alumni. The question on discussion here is: Is the cut and paste section from the Alumni article that you have repeatedly re-inserted a suitable summary of that article to include in this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• In my view the section "Notable Alumni" should not be included in an article about any university. Fox1942 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think they should, if only because it's kind-of inline with other articles, that list notable people whom have appeared there. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I Agree with you Lukeno! Faizan (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"All the other articles are jumping of the bridge, so we should too!" is a really poor rationale for building encyclopedia articles. Got anything better? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was replying to Fox, although I really did fail to format it properly, sorry. It's not really a policy based thing, merely an opinion - I feel that a small list of notable alumni has a place here, as long as it doesn't get too large - then it would be best served by a list or category. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree There are some politics involved here I do not want to know anything more about but why would you list Vice-Chancellors over ChancellorsGeremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 02:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

References

within Indian academics, the executive head of the university is called "Vice Chancellor" (as opposed to say President) Chancellor_(education)#India_2 and the Chancellor serves a different function Chancellor_(education)#India so it does make sense.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Sent by RFC Bot) If the majority of people believe it is then chances are it probably is. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone revert this promotional hype [1] that is not supported by the source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Next? Lukeno94 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --96.58.166.202 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

it is buttly awsome

Potential violations

The paragraph starting with the sentence "The first chancellor of the university..." appears in many Google results, but I'm unsure if they have been copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. James086^Talk 17:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The template at the top of this talk page suggests that the article is the original source of the material. - Eureka Lott 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help

Can anyone help me with guidelines to edit University pages. Which among the followings are appropriate to be included 1) Faculties and Departments 2) Hall of Residence under Campus 3) Festivals 4) Alumni Initiatives 5) Academic Buildings under Campus 6) Administration 7) Academics 8) Student Organisations 9) Publishing 10) Colleges 11) Finance Note: The WikiPeoject: Universities cites Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur as a "good practise-adaptation of WikiProject Universities for India." Zon (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are that we cover what the reliably published third party sources have covered about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Remove the student life section as non encyclopedic to begin with, but cut and paste copyright vio as well

• http://www.amu.ac.in/hostel.jsp

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Aftab Hall merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• support the merge the building article does not meet the basic requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't support merge the building article meets meet the basic requirements for a stand alone article. It is the oldest Hall in the university. Please visit Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Kharagpur. User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom please stay away from this organisation.EyThink (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly are the multiple independent sources that discuss the building in length? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per lack of independent in-depth sources discussing the topic of the building itselfset of buildings themselves. "Important to the unversity" or "named after someone famous" are not sufficient to make a stand-alone article, per WP:GPG. DMacks (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • this is not a building. It is a cluster of hostels having significance.EyThink (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Corrected. Thanks for clarifying. But no matter how many times you say "having significance", it doesn't matter unless there are references proving it. WP:GNG is a fundamental requirement that cannot be met merely by repeated assertion of WP editors. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The page has been improved now. Please have a look. I want to point it out that this Hall is about to hundred years old and one cannot find online material due to lack of digitization of old records. We have to be liberal in our outlook in matters related which are twenty years old.EyThink (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Improvement? if so it is merely going from really really bad to really bad. Certainly not anywhere close to WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom, please contribute in terms of improvement instead of saying that the article is going really really really bad.EyThink (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am contributing. I am working to make a really really bad "article" go away. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. Can't find any stand-alone notability of the hall/group of building; not in sense of GNG or architecture or history or anything. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a building as clarified earlier. We must keep in mind that this Hall was founded and established 80 years ago so we cant find much internet articles on it. This hall has been named after famous personalities as mentioned in the article which is a proof of its notability. Much more materials will be there which is yet to be digitized and uploaded in the website. For the time being the contents of the website of the university be used and let me assure that the university is a Central Government university and also a institute of national importance which does not need its promotion at all.EyThink (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out a number of times the criteria for a stand alone article: WP:GNG . Being named after someone famous is not one of them (or my dog, who is named after 2 presidents would necessarily be accorded 2 pages). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Every building is named after someone or the other. It is named after Sahibzada Aftab Ahmad Khan, who was the Uni's VC before. So he was involved in the Uni and then naming some buildings on his name after his death isn't a big deal. Zakir Husain College of Engineering and Technology was named after Zakir Husain. Indians have tendency to name stuff after people. That does not make it notable. For the time being, why don't we merge this? And when all resources are found, we can have a standalone article if there are things notable enough to write. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• As a note, there appears to be obvious WP:CANVASSing [2] related to this discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't Support merge, it is a separate administrative unit and has notability. Arifjwadder (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge. Aftab Hall lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them and does thus not meet the notability requirements of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: User:Arifjwadder, User:EyThink have been indef blocked for socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifjwadder/Archive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable alumni

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom a few names of notable alumni can be there. See Film and Television Institute of India for reference. Already discussion regarding this took place and again you came back to point zeroEyThink (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

claims of sources existing somewhere else are irrelevant. sources must be provided in this article before the content is restored.

In addition, merely having a source is not sufficient. you must also establish why any particular people should be listed here, and the list here should not become a duplicate of the spin off article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom, can you please comment about this page Harvard_University#Notable_alumni. If Harvard University can have the section then why not Aligarh Muslim University. Can you remove the list from Harvard University?EyThink (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing this article. If you want to discuss Harvard, go to that talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom, have you been ever compensated by some people to not let this page grow? I don't understand why your mind is hell bent against this organisation. In every educational institute few names of notable alumnus is being mentioned always. Here you are arguing that it doesn't have any source!!! I wonder putting few names which have their own standalone article does not demand any source as the article itself is a source to reckon with. I know you can't remove the names from Harvard. Your contributions has been only removal and not addition. This university is more than hundred years old and you always ask for reliable sources. Moreover, there is no yardstick for reliability of sources but, you become a self proclaimed umpire to give judgment on reliability of sources. So, please let the article to grow.EyThink (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not going to let this article "grow" without it following policy- which edits by the COI SPA editors have serious issues with basic content policy WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note for editors

Please see University_of_Oxford while editing this organisation. Aligarh Muslim University was established with the same pattern with that of Oxford so everything right from hostels to departments, buildings are almost identical. AMU is called Oxford/Cambridge of East by many. The founder of the institute stayed six month at Oxford to learn the pattern and implement back home. So, if Oxford can have certain sections then AMU too can. Please take note of this User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom.EyThink (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are unsourced sections at another article only means they too are a problem, and can be challenged and removed per WP:BURDEN. It is very rare that there's any validity to the notion some other articles does this so this one should be allowed to also. The nature of the way Wikipedia develops means that there are always lots of articles here that should be deleted but have not been yet, and content that needs reforming but has not been yet. Pointing to them is like going to a park that has some litter in it and littering yourself. You wouldn't argue to the park ranger giving you a ticket, "but other people littered here too!", would you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, can you please comment about this page Harvard_University#Notable_alumni. If Harvard University can have the section then why not Aligarh Muslim University. Can you remove the list from Harvard University?EyThink (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey EyThink. I'm sorry but I have to ask: did you actually read my post (?) – because it seems impossible to reconcile you asking these questions in its wake. In other words, these questions are directly answered by the substance of my post. To put it yet another way, with little modification, my post could be used almost unchanged to answer these follow-up questions, so it's hard to understand why you're asking them. But to respond, pointing to poor content in another article (like the one on Harvard) is an erroneous basis to argue for keeping poor content in another that you are focused on (i.e., this one). And yes, were the unsourced content at the Harvard article challenged in good faith, it too could be removed if not sourced. However, and I'm not saying you planned to do this, but doing so at that article (or in a host of others) as a form of "retaliation", because this article you are concerned about was focused on, would not be a good faith challenge, and would in my view be a clear case for application of the well respected behavioral guideline at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I am unable to understand that why few names of notable alumni cant be mentioned at the article page as the names are having its standalone article. All educational institutes have few names of notable alumni in their main article page (having standalone article of alumnus), so don't understand the logic in the case of this institute.EyThink (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

EyThink: the issue is not that the article can't mention the names of notable alumni. The issue is that any content that is unsourced – that is not cited to a reliable source – can be challenged under the verifiability policy and when that occurs, the content cannot be returned to an article unless its return is accompanied by the missing citations, which must be 1) reliable, and must be 2) cited using an inline citation. This is foundational policy. See specifically, WP:BURDEN, which is a subsection of the verifiability policy I linked. So, it is not because it's a list of alumni. That's incidental. It could be any content. It's because it has been challenged and not returned with the required citations. Please note the edit summaries that TheRedPenOfDoom left when the content was removed specifically explaining the issue and linking these polices.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit thank you very much for the insight. But there were inline citations earlier as the section is there for very long which i believe. Request you to put few names in the notable alumni section from List of Aligarh Muslim University alumni as of now so that I can expand it gradually after seeing your edit.EyThink (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In the first place, why do you want repetition of content in two pages? And which "few" should be mentioned here? All people who have articles on Wikipedia are notable. No one is "more notable" than another. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, the issue is not notability (but it is incorrect that all people with Wikipedia articles are notable; we have lots of articles on non-notable people whose articles just haven't been deleted yet). You need to cite reliable sources – not another Wikipedia article but sources out in the world – verifying that each person on the list went to the university. Here's an article and its section that does it well: Milton College#Notable alumni. Note the one person listed there whose listing is not accompanied by a citation has a "citation needed" note? That's a challenge to that entry on the list because it is unsourced. The person could have removed it but decided to flag it in this way before removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

the first issue is WP:BURDEN / WP:CITE for claims entered here. the second issue is that we have List of Aligarh Muslim University alumni for which we need to follow Wikipedia:Summary style, and give a summary of that article- not a duplication. The third issue then becomes a question of WP:UNDUE / WP:PEACOCK as to how to appropriately summarize the spin out article using appropriate language and/or examples - since we are not going to list A B C and D, is it appropriate to choose A as an/the representative example or is D better or no specific example at all? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight in popular culture

Including a reference to a movie that hasnt been released would seem to me to be about as relevant to cover as the fact that there are flies on campus. does anyone have an argument for why it should be included? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aligarh Muslim University. 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/20110901221823/http://www.amu.ac.in/aboutamu.htm to http://www.amu.ac.in/aboutamu.htm

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) 20:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AMU national ranking

Nationally,AMU was ranked 7th in "Times Higher Education" Ranking of 2018 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-india and in "US news and world report" https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/india This info is missing so please add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3406:4BDF:7215:C0D4:53DC:73CE (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and rv of valid sourced info about AMU

This is page of central University with long history. It has oldest and unique history of keeping separate culture and traditions. The clubs and societies working under AMU and AMU Alumni associations are unknown to outer world. The wiki article must reflect complete info about its student activities and their academic and residential life. The info may be published or unpublished in books and journal. The wiki article should have info even it is supported by weak source. Lawoctopus1 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"AMU Exams Controller" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AMU Exams Controller. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#AMU Exams Controller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A new book

• https://www.bloomsbury.com/in/partitions-first-generation-9781350142671/ TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Amu TV" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Amu TV has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19 § Amu TV until a consensus is reached. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)