Talk:Erwadi

Removal of text
I've removed a great deal of text from this article as it was inappropriate. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article should be about Erwadi and not about every person who's buried in the shrine there. Text like "She was very much God fearing." is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia and should not be included. I've also removed the text that points out local hotels in the area. Those were removed because Wiki is also not a how-to and should not be used for promotional purposes. Edits should be neutral. This article is still a mess, and to that end, the tags at the top should not be removed until someone has a chance to pick over it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. But there are thousands of articles containing teh life history of past personalities.Wasifwasif (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no sitations for most of the content given. If ever there is any, majority is not from neutral sources. Just promotional content and things. Praveenkoramkottil (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of collection of evidences and will work on re writing shortly since i have significant knowledge and interest in this topic.Wasif (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Demographics
Demographics usually talk about the population distribution not what the town is famous for. I'll merge this with the introduction. Unless there is data which talk about demographics, I'll move this content to the introduction.--SpArC (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can get the demographic information of the village within this week. Do not merge with intro. Please wait. let me update. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not revert changes without discussion
--SpArC (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Full view.
Hi Soda, The intention was to give a full view of the dargah. If 1200 is too large, can we have some lesser sized one.? Wasifwasif (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 600 or 700 usually looks good in all browsers. Though mediawiki guidelines say don't exceed 500 (WP:IMGSIZE). anything greater than that will hang the mobiles, handhelds, and pdas. I use a netbook (10inch screen) and even a 900px usually creates a scroll bar in the browser and the article after that doesn't load properly. So on behalf of smaller screen device users, i would not greater than 700 please :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * :) :). sure lets go with 650. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing
Apart from the currently templated issues with this article, the WP:GALLERY is way too big. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Images
There are few rework needed with this article. But i don't see any reason for the removal of pictures. Please tell why. Wasif (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The URL mentioned as copyright has copied from wikipedia
Hi, 2 queries i am looking for clarification from your deletion of contents from Erwadi. 1. The URL you have mentioned has copied from WP and not vice-versa. 2. Even in that case, not all the contents in Wikipedia are found in that URL there are contents from other sources which are deleted together. Please help how to overcome this as those content are vital for that page. Wasif (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , This article was substantially increased in size from roughly 13 kB to 55 kB with this edit. the material in that edit substantially matches this blog entry.
 * Unfortunately, that page is not captured in the Internet archive, so it won't be easy to determine which was created first, but it seems difficult to believe that someone could create that massive and edit in a single edit without copying from some other source. Furthermore, there are additional problems— virtually none of the added material is sourced which is a requirement.
 * In other words, even if it turns out not to be a copyright violation, and it can be shown that the blog entry was created by copying from Wikipedia, we have to determine whether the original entry meets our standards. I don't think it does, because it was unsourced. If any editor wants to add the material back and include sources that will probably be permissible, although that will still trigger a notification that it matches the blog entry, so is there some evidence that the blog entry was created after the Wikipedia edit? S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, even if it turns out not to be a copyright violation, and it can be shown that the blog entry was created by copying from Wikipedia, we have to determine whether the original entry meets our standards. I don't think it does, because it was unsourced. If any editor wants to add the material back and include sources that will probably be permissible, although that will still trigger a notification that it matches the blog entry, so is there some evidence that the blog entry was created after the Wikipedia edit? S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, even if it turns out not to be a copyright violation, and it can be shown that the blog entry was created by copying from Wikipedia, we have to determine whether the original entry meets our standards. I don't think it does, because it was unsourced. If any editor wants to add the material back and include sources that will probably be permissible, although that will still trigger a notification that it matches the blog entry, so is there some evidence that the blog entry was created after the Wikipedia edit? S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article is already flagged for "This article needs additional citations for verification" etc, and this is not improved by adding more of that. Try to improve what is there already, like sections such as "The war". What war? When was it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)