Talk:Rangabati

Original research
An IP claimed that most of this article is based on a blog by the same name as the original author and that there are no other sources for this info. This blog gives no indication of being by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (taken from WP:USERG). It seems apparent that this blog is not a reliable source and that the article may be based on original research. I've removed the unreliable source, but the content should be re-written if no reliable sources can be located. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 02:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

An now the IP claims that it is OK because WP:RS says: these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists, but the IP apparently overlooked the rest of the sentence which says: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. This is not a blog hosted by a news outlet. This is just a wordpress blog. This blog has no editorial control, and there has been absolutely no evidence provided that this guy is an expert who has had relevant work published in reliable third party sources. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FlyingNinja1
Removal of the template sign below the heading. I think that this page is now meeting the grammatical requirements of a Wiki Page. Also, I feel that most people are now overdoing the correction and beating a dead horse. Thus, I am removing the Template sign. Feel free to discuss this here or on my talk page. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)