Jump to content

User talk:Muhandes/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
I'm not sure what's the point, the discussion is over. Just to humor you, look at any GA or FA article in WP:UNI. If they have a section about alumni or "famous people", every single one of them should have an inline citation. Some random examples of well sourced articles I stumbled upon, University of Ibadan, Marriott School of Management, List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports). --Muhandes (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My original point was to find out if you may have specific reason to distrust QES people. But looking at your example given in WP:UNI, I see a 50-50 situation. E.g., Oxford and Georgetown apply your doctrine, whereas Cambridge and Riverside do not. It's most prominent in the Cambridge article where they have name after name from Newton to Hawking, which rely solely on Wiki bio pages for verifiability. OK, agree not to waste further time on this. Signing out.--EJohn59 (talk) 18:36, 7 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)

Adding for the Template:Biju Patnaik University of Technology

Hello Muhandes the Template:Biju Patnaik University of Technology that was created, have all the colleges and institutes affiliated to the constitute university of Biju Patnaik University of Technology, So I had created the template so, that any one can know about the colleges exixting under Template:Biju Patnaik University of Technology, So recheck again if I have made any mistake by making the template... thanks for informing Whitecirius(talk) (section) 14:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If indeed this is a list of affiliated colleges I will withdraw my proposal and help correct it. But please explain how are the universities related? , and some of the colleges' articles don't mention any affiliation (International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar for instance). --Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I withdrew the proposal, an admin should remove the tag soon. Please don't do this yourself. For now I removed the "universities" line, until I'm certain what it is there for. --Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 8 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)

Creating an article is not a problem as long as you have the sufficient time at your disposal only for wiki. You have to do a lot of research before hosting a reasonable one, though there are quite a few substandard ones available on our wiki.

I still think that compelling a part time wiki editor to go such a long way of creating an article about R C Prasad when he fulfills the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is not fair. The committed editors/administrators like you and others should not take it personally and allow the obvious standard stuff to be posted on wiki and not stick to the gun that you are authorized to hold. Otherwise the voice of sanity will always be stifled here. Of course there are a lot of unethical practices taking place at various places including wiki. But we are unable to distinguish between the ethical and unethical perhaps. arunbandana (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. --Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: review removal

I removed it because it was from a non-notable source. And i don't usually see any reason to add an edit summary. yawaraey (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved the discussion back to your talk page where it started. --Muhandes (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Firstly, I don't appreciate being spoken to in that manner as per WP:CIVIL as I'm, sure you are aware. Secondly, I have reverted your edits and placed the sources next to the charts that clearly show that Progress charted at number 1 in the UK Download and Scottish Album charts. I now consider the matter closed. Yids2010 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show where I was not civil. Even though I had to work for hours to remove badly sourced material you added, I used the most polite words in my first two notes. But you just removed them from your talk page, and a day later continued to do the same. After two polite notes assuming the best of faith, one is left with the only possible conclusion, that you don't care. I left you one more firm note, hoping you will finally address the issue, which I'm happy you just did. --Muhandes (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, you now have your sources (that for some reason were changed most probably as a mistake by someone) but nevertheless..the matter is now closed. And for the record I appreciate you having to clear up alot of mess here but I've been watching the Progress article since creation and have witnessed alot of vandalism on it which I've had to revert constantly, which has made me cautious when content is removed or added by Users operating under an IP. So believe it or not I understand where you are coming from and I hope we haven't got of on the wrong foot. Best Yids2010 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy you understand. --Muhandes (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Correction and update regarding JMET discontinuation by IIT'S

Hello Muhandes, Joint management enterance test has been discontinued by the IIT'S from this year and they have started using CAT score for admission into management programmes.please remove the links and description of this exam from JEE, GATE and IIT pages and update as required visit reference link http://www.iitk.ac.in/gate/jmet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.164.47 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will update the IIT article.--Muhandes (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I updated Indian Institutes of Technology, Joint Management Entrance Test, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and IIT Schools of Management. I don't see it mentioned in the other articles you mentioned.--Muhandes (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Request your template for list

Dear Sir, thanks for your help to delete a bunch of names without bio pages on my Alma mater article QES, HK. You used a template, {{alumni}} which I'd like to use on the Chinese version of the article. Can you give me the full template? Much obliged.--QES girl (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC) PS: forgot to explain why I need the long version. When I used your template on a Chinese page, it just shows this: Template:Alumni .--QES girl (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To see the full template simple edit Template:Alumni. I'm not sure it will work in the Chinese Wikipedia since the implementation is based on another template, {{ambox}} and I'm not sure ambox is implemented in the Chinese Wikipedia. Also note that ambox automatically categorizes, which I'm not sure applies in other Wikipedias. For you convenience, here is the current source:
{{ambox
| subst= <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
| type = style
| text = {{#switch:{{{1}}}
|residents=This article's list of residents
|SAL=This alumni list
|SALpeople=This list of people
|people=This article's list of people
|#default=This article's list of alumni}} '''may not follow Wikipedia's [[WP:V|verifiability]] or [[Wikipedia:NLIST|notability]] policies'''. Please [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by removing names that do not have independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] cited within this article showing they are notable
{{#switch:{{{1}}}
|residents=and residents
|SAL=and alumni
|SALpeople|people=and members of this list
|people=This article's list of people
|#default=and alumni}} or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]].
| cat  = Articles needing cleanup
| date = {{{date|}}}
| all  = All pages needing cleanup
| name = Alumni
}}

--Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll try it in the sandbox first. For your amusement, if you look at that Chinese page, Section 10, you'll see many names in red: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8A%E5%88%A9%E6%B2%99%E4%BC%AF%E4%B8%AD%E5%AD%B8#.E8.91.97.E5.90.8D.E6.A0.A1.E5.8F.8B --QES girl (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I am not 100% certain all Wikipedias have such strict requirements as the English one. For example, in the very early stages of every Wikipedia, most links will be red and no one will object (cf. WP:WTAF).--Muhandes (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: National Institute of Science Education and Research

Hello Muhandes. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of National Institute of Science Education and Research, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a real decline, just that it appears that some sort of hist-merge is required owing to some copy paste issues and repeated moves in the past, I'll take care of the move in a day or two once I understand the history. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. That's some old history, --Muhandes (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for a proof-read

Hello Muhandes, I've seen some of your minor work on Fall Out Boy pages in the past, mostly corrections and such. I was wondering if you could proof read (I think it's called edit-copy or something) the Infinity on High album page? It reached GA recently but the reviewer has said the prose needs a bit of work and it's mostly been a 2-3 person job so maybe you could check it? Thanks in advance. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

With English being my third language, I'm not really a very good editor. If it reached GA the prose is probably good enough, better than I could do it anyway. If there is something specific thought you would want me to have a look at, I could try. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh that's fine then, don't worry. Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

FLC: List of universities in India

Though i am a little late on this FLC discussion, but going forward I should have more time to work on Wikipedia so let me know if you need my help in resolving concerns. I have added it to my watchlist too. Btw its impressive how much you have put in that article. - abhi (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. At this point the only standing concerns are those made by SpacemanSpiff, namely the inclusion criteria and the lack of discussion of state policy. For the former, I believe I have clarified it, but he may think otherwise. At the worst case, we can remove the autonomous ones and he said he will be happy with it. For the latter, he made a suggestion to divide alphabetically and avoid the issue. I saw you made comments already about these issues. I think the best would be to seek the advice of other reviewers and then maybe move forward, but otherwise, at this point, I'm not sure there is anything to do. --Muhandes (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I will keep checking if something comes up. - abhi (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

I have reverted your edits on chartings of Love Love and When We Were Young. The sources given show the charts are clear so please refrain from removing credible charts from articles again. If you are so keen on challenging the charts why not channel these efforts into looking for yourself rather than simply removing the contribution of other users. Thanks Yids2010 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I never edited either Love Love or When We Were Young, you probably mean Love Love (Take That song) and When We Were Young (Take That song).
Second, thanks for the idea, but I'd rather not waste my time on finding sources for material, for which the editors themselves didn't bother.
Third, and most important, instead of giving me advice on how to spend my time, why don't you add proper sources? Here is what you added. here is what you added. Does this source verify the Ireland chart? What am I supposed to do with it, leave it as it is? This is not the first time, it is more like the 10th. --Muhandes (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I used bold letters as i'm fed up with you questioning and removing credible charts as you did with Love Love (Take That song) and When We Were Young (Take That song).
Second, you are more than welcome for my suggestion and as a user of considerable experience it would be nice if you actually did help articles rather than remove other user contirbution abruptly.
And third, I do add proper sources although over time they are formatted or changed for one reason or another. And the Irish Airplay is simple. Just search the archive and there you go, it's all there. And for the record, the same method should be applied when looking for charts from the IRMA and singles that did not make the UK Top 40.
Enjoy your day. Yids2010 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is where we do not agree. I think I am improving an article if I am removing unsourced information. If it is unsourced anyone can vandalize it, we are better off without it. I'm not sure what you mean by " I do add proper sources although over time they are formatted or changed for one reason or another". here is an edit you made. No one changed it "over time", it is the way you added it. In this edit you give this page as the source for an Irish peak. That source is for the UK chart only as far as I know. Mind you, I usually start with tagging with {{citation needed}}, I only remove material when there is already some doubt. Recall that in this cases another editor removed the peaks before I did. --Muhandes (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You know what, rather than argue, I've been thinking about this. Why don't we make a deal. I will be more careful with charts you added, and you'll be more careful with double checking your sources. I think this way everyone benefits.--Muhandes (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I don't want to argue either, lets call a truce. And yes, I appreciate that, if we work together rather than against each other I'm sure the articles concerned will benefit alot more. Yids2010 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Asenovgrad

After you saw my translation from Bulgarian to English of the article about my hometown (Asenovgrad) the section about the Cultural and natural sights. Could you tell me what I have missed in editing the article? I talk about links, cite, sources, quotes and so on.Alexander1290 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexander1290, welcome to the English Wikipedia. With all due respect, I don't see how this discussion is relevant to my discussion above with Yids2010, so I moved it here to a new section, I hope you don't mind.
I tagged the article for two major problems. First, the complete lack of reliable source. I'm not sure what the standard is in other languages of Wikipedia, but in the English one, verification of facts is very important. You need to cite reliable sources for facts you write, and another Wikipedia article cannot serve as the source. The second tag is a clean up tag, for cleaning up the many general grammatical errors still present in the article. I already addressed another problem, overlinking of dates and common English terms. Feel free to ask any questions you may have. --Muhandes (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

NVPI

Hello Muhandes. Can you tell me if there's any archive for NVPI certifications? The current website does not show anything. (I'm looking for the certifications for Toni Braxton's Secrets). Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the NVPI database is down for some time now. I sent them several messages but got no response, so I can't tell when or if it will be up again. I am not aware of any alternative source. If you find one, please let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I searched everywhere. Couldn't find an single alternative source. But I will surely let you know if I find one. Novice7 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lot of thanks

Ref: List of Urdu language poets

Hi,Muhandes,lot of thanks and shukria,I was asking Drmies to do it,but you did.Thanks again.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. --Muhandes (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

pay your attention

pay your attention
Mr. Muhandes, go through the List of Bengali language authors and look that 80% listed authors do not have any article in Wikipedia.Go and trim it and make it a "TINY AND INCOMPLETE LIST".There are thousands of writers in this world and nobody has time to write articles on them.A common people only can include their name in the list.What do you know about Urdu literature and all poets of this language? You are a slow witted man who do not know that it is never possible to include article of each and every author/poet of every language in Wikipedia. And therefore, Each and Every list of authors and poets in Wikipedia shall remain " INCOMPLETE". Understand? 
Tabassum Waarsi (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the trophy. The only way a project like Wikipedia can work is to have policies. WP:LISTPEOPLE is the policy about lists of people. It says very clearly that there must be some proof of notability, either an article or a source. It's clear, simple and effective. Yes, it will remain incomplete. That's what the consensus is, an incomplete list is better than a list full of of people which are not notable. --Muhandes (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Ref:List of Urdu language poets

Even a juvenile who reads Urdu Poetry knows the name of these personalities, deleted by YOU & Mr. Ehsan Sehgal and as mentioned by you that these are not "notable" !!!! GREAT JOKE !!!!

http://shair-o-shairy.ucoz.com/index/abdul_hameed_adam/0-41

You may harp on the string of WP:LISTPEOPLE Tabassum Waarsi (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Being such a new editor in Wikipedia it is no wonder you are completely missing the point. I have no opinion about the importance or fame of any of these people. Nor did I ever claim they were not notable (and note that this word does not mean what you think). I said notability was not demonstrated. That's how we do things in Wikipedia. You don't like it? There are plenty of other outlets for your creativity you can use. These are the rules of the game here. You are kindly requested to follow policy and guidelines, or try to achieve consensus and change the rules. --Muhandes (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well,Mr.Waarsi,Muhandes is doing best editings according to wiki policies and guidelines,he can't go beyond of it.Other thing,when spelling of the article is wrong,the name will not appear,Vazir Agha and Rahi,names have been added in the list.When a person has a wiki article,you can add it in the list.If you think,deleted Notable poets have reliable sources,please go ahead and creat the article and mention in the list,there will be no any problem and deletion.I hope you understand the policies of the Wikipedia.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 8 cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 8 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged.--Muhandes (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 10 cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 10 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged.--Muhandes (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 11 cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 11 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged.--Muhandes (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your help

This user, (talk) is constantly vandalising the Progress, Progressed and various singles by Take That. Can you help me out with the best way in dealing with them? It also appears you have had problems with them before and they have a record of vandalising Wikipedia. Please get back to me, Many thanks. Yids2010 (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way to deal with them is warn them appropriately and if they ignore the warnings and persist, report them. It seems like the pages are well watched as it is, so I don't see what I can do which you and other editors are not already doing. --Muhandes (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As all these articles seem to be well patrolled now, I am going to remove them from my watchlist. If at some point you want me to go back to watching them, or you need my help in reverting damage, just let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, leave it with me and i'll find the sources that have changed or have been removed over time. Problem is the titles chart but the source provided updates itself as the charts change. Im just looking for archive charts as we speak. Yids2010 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muhandes/Archive_6&oldid=1140354619"