Talk:Chembai/Archive 1

Subjectivity
Not the neutral objective language of an encyclopedic article, more a subjective piece of adulation. Needs a little copy-editing. Citations, and links to terminology entries would also improve the article.
 * Cain Mosni 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Went through last night, and added a whole raft of cross-links. Could probably do with some proof-reading and cross-checking to ensure that the links are correct in the case of multiple possibilities.
 * Cain Mosni 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now its almost entirely rewritten in a near-neutral language. I'm considering putting it up for GA assessment.-- ॐ Kris 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not neutral enough, I'd suggest. The opening paragraph contains the following: "...powerful voice and majestic singing, which catapulted him to instant fame...".  "powerful", "majestic", "catapulted" all very subjective words, and no citation for any of them.


 * "It is said that..." Said by whom?  Where?  Verified how?


 * "...was a highly respected musician." Respected by whom?  Documented where?


 * The article is still in need of some attention, added to whch a lot of the references that were cited before have now disappeared and need to be re-sourced. Cain Mosni 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cain, thanks for the feedback... I agree there's still much scope for improvement. Please let me know about other specific issues that I have to address to better it.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft
This article is nothing but an outpourings of an ardant fan. This needs a total rewrite for tone, facts and neutrality. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MOS for help in writing WP articles and on encyclopedic style.- Parthi talk/contribs 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thanks a million for the idea.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. No go and rewrite the article with a more neutral style. Or I will do it for you. Make sure you get copyright permission from the rasikas.org website. Oh, sorry I forgot. it is your own website isn't it! - Parthi talk/contribs 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To use an aussie expression, don't get your knickers in a knot over this. You can make edits on Wikipedia, the article doesnt belong to me, and I cant be bothered by trite messages-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
Verifiability guidelines say that an article cannot cite a source that is 'self published'. This article cites extensively from http://www.rasikas.org/chembai/chembaiearlylife.html, which is a site maintained by User:Srikris. - Parthi talk/contribs 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All these references have been updated to hard sources now. Link to www.chembai.com should not be removed since its the only comprehensive website on the singer and is no way detrimental to the article-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * External links guideline states in the section 'Links to be avoided':
 * 3. A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
 * Based on the above, I am removing the link. Let some 'unbiased' editors decide whether to include this link or not - Parthi talk/contribs 10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are suggestive and vandalism is not acceptable based on "enforcement" of guidelines.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 10:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One cannot pick and choose which guidelines to follow. My recommendation to you is to follow the guideline and let an unbiased editor decide whether to keep this link or not. You are an interested party in this. You obviously want higher traffic to your website. It is understandable, but Wikipedia is not myspace.com. It is an encyclopedia.
 * You should be careful in calling me a vadal. It is a personal attack and you could get blocked for that. - Parthi talk/contribs 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you a vandal. Repetitive deletions of a particular link in one particular page and finding faults with all edits made by a particular editor is reminiscent of vandalism and do not seem to be conducive to good faith. No member can "impose" a suggestive guideline on another member repeatedly by editing out links.No_personal_attacks-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps no one member can, but Wikipedia runs on majority consensus. Said guideline is a result of that consensus.  The guidelines are far more than suggestions.  They are the fabric that underpins the credibility of the whole project.  Guidelines should be adhered to unless there are exceptional circumstances.  There is nothing exceptional about this article, its subject matter, you as an editor, or the circumstances in general.  Hence there is no reason for not adhering to the guidelines, irrespective of whether one assumes good faith or not.  As for the suggestion that criticism of your edits is somehow akin to vandalism is somewhat arrogant in its assumption that your edits are beyond criticism.  Cain Mosni 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It no longer relies on self-published online articles, and the website cant be edited out on presumptions any more.


 * ALl irrelevant. It's still your web site, so you should not be inserting it.  It's still not verifiable information.  And it's not the official web site of the individual or their estate.  All reasons for it not being there.  Cain Mosni 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger
Merging two unrelated articles which are merely bound by a common name but denote different things is not acceptable. One is a biography, another is a notable event not related to the person except being named in his honour.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion. However if the second page is a 'homage' to Chembai then it should belong in the main article. - Parthi talk/contribs 10:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an event which is being continued where musicians pay their homage. It is not directly related to the musician or his biography-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tone
I'm not here to teach anyone to write good english. They can go back to school to learn that. There are guidelines in WP one can use. For example Avoid peacock terms and Guide to writing better articles. This article contains sentences like:
 * "It is said that for more than five centuries the Chembai family had been involved in music. "
 * "The foundations that were to serve Chembai solidly throughout his career were thus laid at this time. He acquired the ability to sing in unison with sruti always and to handle the swarasthanas accurately."
 * "One thing led to another and the boys ended up joining Sastri's troupe."
 * "But fortunately for music, Chembai regained his voice, so that he could resume his singing career."
 * "Chembai sang for the limited time allotted to him and was about to get up, when there was a chorus of requests for one more number and he had to oblige!"

And many more. These reek of fancruft and do not belong in an encyclopedia. May be in a magazine article such as Sruthi, but not in WP. -Parthi talk/contribs 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Notwithstanding Srkris's repeated removal of the template, the article still does not reach the copy standards required for this or any other encyclopaedia.


 * You may not agree, Srkris, but the majority consensus is against you. Cain Mosni 01:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cain, I have no problems with constructive criticism and feedback about my edits. But Parthi's edits are not, in my view, constructive. See this User_talk:Sundar. Regardless, I will definitely try to change it to a more formal/netural tone. I did not say ever that it is 100% objectively written. I just want you to understand that reaching such levels of objectivity can take some time, and I am not having loads of time at the current moment. I will do the edits you and Venu62 have suggested out soon. But please see the big picture, I fear Venu62 is wikistalking me.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 08:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the correct term is 'watching'. This user has a habit of inserting links to his websitesinto numerous articles. I had this reported to wikimedia. I have been watching his to see where else he inserts his links. Call it whatever.As far as I am concerned it is called vigilence against an user with a track record in spamming. - Parthi talk/contribs 09:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is what I have mentioned in this linked page called watching in your language? Wikipedia calls it wikistalking. And your malevolent report to Wiki to ban my website when I clearly apologised citing ignorance of wikipedia rules, was brushed aside by an admin. So much for your good faith and harassment methods. I request you to stop your hawkish behaviour and not to make this page a place for your aplologetic justifications of high-handedness. This page is to talk about this article, and whether your edits are meant to help it or ruin it. -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)