User talk:Avinesh/Archive 5

Re: Undapakru

Hi! Generally, non-free images of living people used solely for depiction of who they are are unacceptable except in limited circumstances (see here for details). east.718 at 11:44, December 29, 2007

Re:Recent attacks

Oops. I did not ignore it, I missed it, I was not aware of it. Sorry. Thanks for bringing the fact to my attention. I will mention it in the article. You also come there for collaborative editing. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kottayam medical college

It seems that u have entered that advertisement tag to kottayam medical college. Can u suggest how to change it? i dont c any kind of a promotional activities in it. After all its a govt institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelthamby (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons why I tagged ‘advertisement’ are: Wikipedia is not a directory. The material covered in the article looks like a promotional stuff. Eg. The course offered sections, contact information etc. We don’t need all that anyway per WP:NOT. A total revamping/gen cleanups also required in this case. You are requested to check other articles, the way they done it. Preferably, I will try to improve it. If you have time, please try to enhance it. Check WP:STYLE also. --Avinesh Jose T 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of texts

Have an eye on the edits by a new anti-Christian POV-pusher in the article whitewashed large texts regarding anti-Christian violence in various pretexts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial issues

Could you please provide some instructions on writing about controversial issues? To make it more NPOV, Do we really need these sorts of materials? Are there any guidelines about this? If no such type of materials, I think probably there are chances of lacking neutrality. What do you think about this? --Avinesh Jose T 08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is not clear to me. Perhaps you could try asking more concrete questions in a specific context. In the meantime, the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TRUTH and WP:TIGERS.

In brief, I would say that the problem about controversial issues is that the people who most want to write about them are the ones who have a "dog in the fight", that is, the ones who take one side or another. In order to write a truly objective article, one must try not to take sides. At the same time, it is often the case that one perspective dominates in the academic community or in the media. For example, look at Global warming controversy, 9/11 Truth Movement or Holocaust denial. If there is a dominant perspective and a minority perspective, how do we present what most people consider to be "the truth" while giving a fair presentation of the opposing points of view? It's not easy and these articles are the subject of continuing heated dispute.

I pride myself on hewing to the NPOV line although I confess that I have gotten tripped up a couple of times due to ignorance. I do try to correct these failings when they are pointed out to me. The best way to do this is to leave your emotions and passions at the door (cf. WP:TIGERS). Remind yourself that Wikipedia is not about presenting THE TRUTH but about presenting all significant perspectives on an issue without making a personal judgment as to their validity. If there are criticisms to be made about a perspective, put those criticisms in the mouths of a reliable source with a verifiable citation.

--Richard (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is really helpful. --Avinesh Jose T 09:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makara Jyothi (NPOV)

Please have a look on Makara Jyothi. I think the NPOV tag may be removed at this stage. Could You check it out and edit, possible?. --Avinesh Jose T 10:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I don't think the NPOV tag should be taken off as there is text that is strongly skeptical of Makara Jyothi. For Wikipedia to call it a fraud is highly POV. (Probably it's true that it is a fraud but such language is too strong.) I don't have time today to try and fix it as the amount of editing required is extensive. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the reasons why this appears to be a fraud but it is better to say "According to X, Y and Z, facts A, B and C point to Makara Jyothi being a fraud" than to say "Makara Jyothi is a fraud".

Hope that helps. Maybe I can help edit this at some later time.

--Richard (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put several efforts into this as you can see it now. About skeptical of Makara Jyothi, reliable sources with a number of citations are there. That’s why I asked you to considering about removal of NPOV. Otherwise, could you please explain for what reason it lacking NPOV? --Avinesh Jose T 08:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mrs KM Mathew.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mrs KM Mathew.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]