User talk:AtticusX/Archive 1

peer review
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Forestry
I've noticed your work on articles related to forestry...good work! Please consider joining WP:FORESTRY. I also see that you've worked a lot on Magdalena articles, I traveled around there about 5 years ago, it's one of my most favorite places in the world. Cool. Minnecologies (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Hi there. I notice that you are doing some good changes to South African Municipalities, thanks for that, but I think the change Nelson Mandela who was born and lives in nearby Transkei is a bit of a stretch. 400km really does not seem to qualify for nearby. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're right. Thanks for catching that.  The phrase wasn't mine - I'd actually found the phrase at Port Elizabeth and copied it to Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality where it seemed germane to the explanation of the name.  I will fix both instances. AtticusX (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for catching the image size at aurora (astronomy). Appreciated. --Ckatz chat spy  03:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. AtticusX (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Africa
I have recently overhauled WikiProject South Africa with the following:
 * Improving collaboration of participants by adding an Open tasks section with specific as well as common tasks
 * Added link to the CatScan tool to find articles needing cleanup, referencing and expanding
 * Added common tasks that should be performed on Portal:South Africa
 * Added information on how to add Geographical coordinates
 * Added articles missing Images
 * Added assessment information
 * Improving the layout to make access to information easier
 * Added simple "How can I help?" instructions for new project members
 * Extended the Resources section to assist participants in finding South Africa related information
 * Added bot generated Article alerts
 * Added a bot generated Cleanup listing
 * Added more information on template usage
 * Added a section on language usage
 * Improved the categories section with trees for category:South Africa Wikipedia administration and category:South Africa
 * Added link to Wikipedia Books
 * Marked inactive sections of the project as inactive

Comments, constructive criticism and suggestions for improving it further are welcome --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Zamuni
As per your discussion on Template talk:Zamuni I would like to go ahead and get WikiProject South Africa and specifically the Municipalities task force updated to reflect the fact that we should rather use infobox settlement. Can you propose the change on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Municipalities task force or just confirm it is a good idea if User:Htonl makes the note before you. Thanks --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Trampolining and the circus
I removed your recent addition of the Circus Templates to Trampolining because this article describes the gymnastic sports of trampolining. You may find a better fit in the article on the actual equipment Trampoline. Dabbler (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Accidentally on Purpose (pilot)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Accidentally on Purpose (pilot), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucent Dossier Experience
Thank you for your help on this article. It's very much appreciated. Ccboehne (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rasa Sayang
If it happens again it needs to go to a noticeboard - edit wars on this type of subject can be particularly drawn out -= better to get third parties to look at it sooner than later SatuSuro 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL
Very fine sense of humour AtticusX. Thanks. Have fun (artical articals), --Factuarius (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vidal-Lablache Atlas
The quote actually used to source the supposed pro-Bulgarian bias of the Atlas actually indicates that "pro-Bulgarian" in the context means "subscribed to the view that Macedonia was Bulgarian territory". As you surely know, there were many opinions about Macedonia's demographics at the time and many non-Bulgarian sources had a similar opinion (including most atlases, as it's indicated on the Commons page). Therefore, the implication that showing Macedonia as Bulgarian means the same as "pro Bulgarian" apart from not representing well the view of the work, is also just an opinion. So we must either change the statement "considered pro-Bulgarian by some later sources due to showing most of Macedonia as Bulgarian" or remove it altogether. In this way we won't mislead readers that an Atlas showing the prevailing opinion at the time was pro-Bulgarian just because some later sources interpreted it like this. Kostja (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC) PS: See also the talk page of Factuarius for a third opinion. Kostja (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kostja I see you try to remove the ref about the map, using every possible excuss. But as I have answered you, a map either is, or isn't, pro-Bulgarian. Cannot be pro-Bulgarian in the First Balkan War article and NPOV in an other article. When a reader is having a look upon it, we cannot limit his look only to the upper part of Serbia or into Albania, and not in Bulgaria or Greece. Please stop pretending you cannot understand these very simple facts. You did the same with Stanford's map by inserting a ref about being pro-Greek to every article in WP who has it (after you unsuccesfully tried -together with the 3 other compatriots of yours- to totally remove that map from every article in WP by brute edit warring), and nobody protested or reverted you. Please be reasonable and don't try to mislead other Users with arguments already answered, and in which you never answered. Please. --Factuarius (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for explaining your disagreement. I got involved because I saw the deletion of a relevant citation without a clearly explained reason.  Deletion usually isn't the best way to handle politically charged details like this -- better, if possible, to improve the wording until both sides are satisfied, or else the issue will eventually come up again.  You both have valid points to make, so I recommend you continue this conversation on one of the articles' talk pages, and try to find a brief phrase substituting for "pro-Bulgarian" that succinctly but fairly captures the reality.  Maybe there is a way to say it that both of you would agree with.  If collaboration fails, you can always seek mediation from a qualified third party, which, unfortunately, I am not. Best of luck. AtticusX (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Islam in Indonesia
The source doesn't really support categorically the 'increase' in persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, but looking through the subsections below did support the 'increase' although not clearly. You would expect persecution to be proportional to media reports etc. However, i'll try and edit it later with more specific details. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2010


 * Looks like you found a news report that unambiguously supports that "increasing persecution" statement. Well done. AtticusX (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

battle of lahore
hi, i think simply reverting my edits wont help, the site you gave [ http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/ba/battle_of_lahore.htm] isnt reliable, nor dose it says any thing about result of war. and article of the Indo-pak war of 1965 is already messed up, with out reliable references, so its useless to read it.


 * Strategic victory is defined as: a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war. and defending Lahore definitely gave pak a long term advantage in the war.
 * More over indians failed in their objective to capture lahore, and this brings a point to pak's score board.
 * Or wht else do you call strategic victory ?

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit at Battle of Lahore because it came right on the heels of another user who was literally and in great detail trying to rewrite the battle, transparently and without regard for the facts. Your edit, in proximity to those anonymous edits, looked like part of the same campaign of propaganda.  Still.  The "result" of a battle is a potentially sensitive and politically charged matter, so it's wise to seek consensus first or provide reliable sources when you make edits along those lines.  If you can provide a reliable source to support your edit, I have no objection to it.  Or you could bring it up on the talk page so people can follow your logic and agree or disagree with it as the case may be.  My interest is in enforcing and encouraging due process for potentially controversial edits, not in seeking a particular outcome in this case. AtticusX (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Persian vs. "farsi"
Trust me, i'm not mistaken! The fact that a lot of people say something doesn't make it "right". If the word "farsi" could be used in English, the same would be true for "deutsch", "francais", "al-arabiya", "dansk", "magyar", "Slovenčina", "தமிழ்", "Lëtzebuergesch", ... the list goes on. you may wish to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_names for a more exhaustive list. Thanks, however, for your concern. Kamran Kamran the Great (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not apologize for drawing out the argument. To answer your question, no I don't have a "reliable" source other than my "logic" explained above. I respect (and can, somewhat, agree with) your comment about "farsi" appearing in English dictionaries ... ..., but MY argument is that it shouldn't. I do realize that it's me (and a few others) against lexicologists and the like (!) but then again, many agree that it's a valid argument. Cheers, Kamran Kamran the Great (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pashtun people
Hello AtticusX, your comments would be appreciated here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Glee and Hard Spacing
Thanks for the informative policy link regaring my edit on Glee. Learn something new every day :) I'll be careful about that type of edit in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafgeek (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Karachi
You removed the sentence that was repeated twice. I changed the placement of the sentence and did not insert the same sentence twice. Sorry for not checking other changes you made to the article. I would fix the changes soon. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Devaasuram
You have reverted back the edits in the Devaasuram page saying that it is unreliable edits. But the info that you removed is correct. Can you please restore it? --Sreejith K (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you beat me to it. I apologize for the mistake.  By way of explanation, the edits I reverted at Devaasuram and Raavanaprabhu were part of an attempt to expunge a multi-article trail of damage left by an anonymous user who appears on a daily basis from various IPs, always starting with 117.204.1**.***.  (See Abuse response/117.204.1xx.xxx)


 * This user has a signature habit of vandalizing a dozen articles in a row from a given IP, typically messing with birthdates, death dates and release dates in Indian entertainment articles so they don't match what the sources say, and maybe just to make things interesting he'll occasionally throw in an edit or two that do not consist of blatant vandalism, but which are still half-ass and do not often improve the article much. His track record is about 90% spurious edits, 10% benign edits.  Sometimes he gets blocked, but he just comes back a few hours later from a slightly different IP.


 * Why this user persistently engages in this destructive behavior is anyone's guess, but because his edits don't resemble normal vandalism, the result is a particularly insidious trail of misinformation that is tricky to spot unless one is following his history. Containing his messes can get time-consuming; I used to check all his edits against outside sources before reverting but we were barely keeping up with his prolific trail of damage.  Now I check his info against reliable sources when in doubt but sometimes make educated guesses, and occasionally I do make mistakes, as happened in this case.  Well-meaning users sometimes clean up his sloppy punctuation, etc. before someone has a chance to revert the misinformation, but they don't fact-check his fiction so it gets further embedded.  You apparently intercepted two of his non-vandalism edits, and I see that you fact-checked in these two cases and have now added citations to back up the true statements, which is greatly appreciated.


 * Anyway, that's the full explanation. Thanks for your help and I apologize again for the mistake. AtticusX (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI--Sodabottle (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the discussion, Sodabottle. AtticusX (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Email ?
Could you enable email for your account ? I'd like to share some relevant tips regarding the Date Change Vandal, which I don't wish to post publicly where the vandal can see it. If you are willing, I'd suggest creating a wikipedia specific gmail/yahoo/hotmail ID to avoid compromising your real-world privacy. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Enabled! AtticusX (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Check your mailbox. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

reverting good faith edits
I looked into that edit and the numbers from the pakistan 2009 census haven't been released yet, but I found the results of the 1998 Census by city.I can't find a template to properly reference the site though, do you know one?Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The report you filed.
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 117.207.160.139. Rockyman512 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Hi, I need some help, Suhayli (talk) is adding a whole chunk of paragraph of Mainstream view of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The text is more directed at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, rather than the article. I also advised him to make it concise, if he really wants to add Mainstream views in the introduction. He wouldn't listen, nor discuss properly and keeps on blaming me of Vandalism. For more detail, please visit his talk page. What do you think I should do in this case? Also the case is similar with Qadiani Problem book, where he blames me of not adhering to neutral point of view, whereas he is not being neutral...and I am being neutral. ThankYou. Waiting For your help! Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Lahore
Hello, err.. perhaps I erred when I added the wikify tag. What I wanted to do was encompass all the issues in one tag as opposed to having multiple tags in the lede of the article. When I started editing the article, My main issue was that another user seemed to think it was a Pakistani military victory which the sources in the article disagreed with. In addition, I believe that some of the citations in the book were misinterpreted so I read them and rephrased them based on what they were actually claiming. I've managed to correct most of the citations and I kept the statements made by General Musharraf as it is important to have both the Pakistani and Indian perspective on the matter however, I still think the article needs expansion. Thus to paraphrase, the two issues I have with the article are that it needs additional citations for verification and that it needs to be expanded. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)




 * Thanks for showing me the template and ofcourse, let me know if you have any issues with the article. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lakshmi Rai
Hei, I think a temporary semi-protection of Lakshmi Rai is very much essential. i gotta slow connection now. So not requesting it myself.Rgs.  Arjun  codename024 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check this user Hi, I think u must ban this user 99.244.95.122. You can clearly know that he is a vandalising from his recent edits of Joseph vijay. He has included |spouse = Sangeetha Sornalingam (1999–present) and trisha (keep)
 * domesticpartner =


 * website = http://www.shriyasaran.com

So don't let this happen again. The wind or breeze 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The wind or breeze (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, guys, I'm not an administrator. I can help resolve issues with pages, but I don't have the magical ban hammer. AtticusX (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir
I noticed you removed the quotemarks on the Azad Kashmir page. I did this because Wikipedia is meant to be neutral; and by calling the area "Azad" it implies that it is free, while the Indian portion isn't. Hope it helps. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw what you were trying to do there. Quotemarks around part of a territory's title don't neutralize it, they come across as a sarcastic commentary on it. The name's implication may be ironic in your POV, but the name of the place is the name of the place, whether its implications are true or not. Countries, territories, organizations, etc. do get the benefit of deciding what they want to be officially called. AtticusX (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean it ironically. Assume good faith.  Thanks. --92.19.26.39 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your intent, adding quotation marks is obviously inappropriate treatment of a place-name. AtticusX (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ani notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Saj2009. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Move opinion
Hei, i am guessing that since you edit a lot of film actor's articles that you will be familiar with the naming conventions. I feel that that the title of "Prithviraj Sukumaran" is inappropriate as he is known simply as "Prithviraj", so i am thinking that a title of the form "Prithviraj ( )" is more apt. My move to that format was twice reverted. Now, i am looking for some opinion from ppl experienced in this genre. Yours will be very helpful. Thanks.  Arjun  codename024 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tirana Circus
Could you please help expanding the article of Tirana Circus? --Vinie007 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
I have set up a sandbox for User talk:BalochMedia so he can work on the page in private etc...What i am wondering is if the copy i have placed in the sandbox is the copyrighted text you were referring to on his talk page..pls see User:BalochMedia/sandbox...basically wondering if he needs to start from scratch or if this copy is ok??..Moxy (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Baloch People
Hey there. Sorry I did not mean any offense by pointing out my concerns. The information on the previous page was mostly not authentic and some lines were also attacking the people and would be found offensive. These people are already living in extreme poverty and war which can be clarified easily, so editing was largely vandalized and unprotected before but it was not noticed before and that was my concern. BalochMedia (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Regarding previous page
Hope you are doing good. Thank you for pointing out these mistakes from my article: * wapedia.mobi is an inappropriate reference source. It is a mirror of the Wikipedia site. * The ethnologue.com sources you added for several statistics do not support the statistics. * Unexplained removal of valid sources in second paragraph of lead section. * Dubious unsourced changes to statistic-country pairings in third paragraph of lead section. * Unexplained deletion of entire "Demographics" section. * Bad grammar in "Origins and History" section. * Unexplained blanking of the entire section titled "History of the Baloch people".

But also kindly be neutral when editing or viewing or reviewing pages belonging to other people because the I do not think you pointed that many problems from the previous page. Long time editing does not allow sided opinions.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is the language barrier getting in the way or if this is you not understanding Wikipedia's procedures again.


 * You think I am demonstrating "sided opinions" (presumably a bias against your views, whatever they are) because I didn't point out 7 problems "from the previous page"? What "previous page" are you referring to?  Do you mean the previous version of the article before you completely rewrote it?


 * The previous version, for all its faults, was the collaborative effort of many editors working together over a long time. When you completely overwrite an article with new material, the burden falls on you to ensure that your version is an improvement.  Which is why I have recommended that you take it a step at a time and overhaul the article incrementally rather than all at once.  The fact that English is evidently not your native language makes the challenge doubly difficult for you.


 * When I took the time to write out that list for you, it was because I thought you might be interested in knowing why your edit got reverted. So as to avoid making the same mistakes next time. AtticusX (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edited Baloch people
Hey, Again sorry I did not mean any offense and did not say you were demonstrating one sided opinion, What I meant was that the page was vandalized and had a lot of copy pasted materials but when I worked on it and uploaded, it got deleted couple of times. That is why I got worried because to me the whole point of Wikipedia is availability of correct information. But Thanks for your cooperation regarding this issue. That is the whole point. And finally I think I have made a lot of improvement in the article Can you please verify the changes I have done now. You are right that the previous page was collaborative work but on most of its part everyone was basically just saying what they want and not contributing interesting issues and facts. On the other side if you follow the history of the page you can see that I have kept making improvement and actually researched and worked on it on daily basis. Can you please verify the page and references in the sandbox page, because I am concerned about breaking copyright laws and getting blocked.

Thank you. BalochMedia (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing
Hey. I believe I have fixed mostly everything with relevant references and I am working on fixing few of the problems you have stated. But for the sake of correct information through the point of view of the common people, some of your views strongly conflict with that of mine. And also there on top of that there is a war [].
 * You provided the stats that "70% live in Pakistan", you should Also know that around 70 to 80% of them are kept illiterate.  []. While the Province where government rules from has 82% literacy rate with widely available facilities.
 * So I am hoping as you have been around for a while, you understand that when you ask me "Put it on talk page and share it and then wait for approval from people", you must also understand that where this approval will come from. The literacy rate of Balochistan (region) that you are talking about can be confirmed through the references here. The illiteracy rate is the reason the page Baloch People has not been in corrected before properly. []. I believe you understand that Wikipedia is a source of information about the subject, which is Baloch People. BalochMedia (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.


 * I don't understand what "views" you think I have that could possibly conflict with yours. As I've said before, I am not an expert on Baloch people, and I am not trying to tell you what to say or not to say in the article.  I am trying to help you follow procedures for successfully gaining WP:CONSENSUS when rewriting an article.  I don't disagree with or wish to undervalue your points about illiteracy and war, but what does that have to do with following Wikipedia's guidelines?  That's all I care about.


 * If you ensure that your article is well-written and (most importantly) all its key statements properly supported with references to third-party sources, it will be a welcome addition to the encyclopedia. Providing other editors with a chance to approve or suggest improvements for a big rewrite is not a bad thing for an article.  One doesn't have to be an expert on the Baloch people to look at an article, check that it is supported accurately by reliable sources, and see whether it is well-written. AtticusX (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Karachi statistics
Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention AtticusX. You're right in stating that mother tongue and ethnic groups are not entirely interchangeable. So I propose going with the option of rewriting the whole paragraph to be about ethnic groups, as new language statistics won't be able available till the next census (whenever that will be).

Take Care. A Fantasy (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words
New topic see talk page of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed Signature to New Username
Hello! A couple of days ago I added some info about Myst to the Peter Gabriel Article. I decided to finally get a wikipedia account, so I went ahead and re-signed my name as my account. Wikipedia's guidelines say I should contact anyone who responded, so I thought I'd let you know. MagnumVsRockford (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Welcome to Wikipedia. And thanks for adding the info about Myst to the article. I remember really enjoying the version of "Curtains" that appeared in Myst IV. AtticusX (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan
The war is only part of "Afghanistan's 2001-present history" and the section in the article is not only about the war. It suppose to cover all the events that took place in the 2001-present history. Niether is Afghanistan at war with another nation and niether was the previous Taliban a recognized government.--Jrkso (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jose Pellissery
The content I wrote in the career section of the article Jose Pellissery was removed because it was claimed as copyright violation. This contains only facts and I am finding it difficult to rewrite the prose without having resemblance to the hindu article mentioned in the article's talk page. Can you help rewriting it? --Sreejith K (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Smokey Bear‎
Hi, thank you for the really good Smokey Bear‎ article 'completion' edit of my recent rewrite part act. A neutral mode towards the SB icon, while offering a newer fire ecology component was my goal. Previous edit seemed to fire him as a bad bear, mine had a needless 'peace promo' at end, and now it is just the info presented clearly.-thanks---cheers--- Look2See1  t a l k →  03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Thanks for the edit.  Cheers, AtticusX (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Hey, thanks! :)
 * AtticusX (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

punctuation
Hi. Thanks for that. Appreciate your efforts. Cheers AtticusX !!!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reverts
Hello, and sorry about doing multiple reverts at once. Certain articles I find that they are edited by users who try to keep articles their own way and end up taking out important information or adding in stuff they want that totally violates manual of style, etc. So sometimes I have a habit of reverting them all back to a previous edit by a good faith editor or trustworthy editor. And yes, sometimes I unintentionally take out some intermediate good faith edits as well. But my main aim is to take out all the edits that dampen the article, because they just keep coming back even after you take the time to correct/delete them all manually. I'll make sure I watch out for good faith intermediate edits next time. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ok dude
May be i have done it by mistake,i apologize,cheers-Sunil(talk),24 oct 2010 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism
Hi there, I noticed your contributions to Unitarian Universalism. I recently changed the first sentence on that page back to a previous version, for reasons I've detailed on the talk page. I'd like to have wording that is actually correct and neutral, so please weigh in! Thanks, ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edit and for letting me know about it. I agree that the version you changed it back to is better. AtticusX (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Lichtenstein Quarter-Ring Sidewalk Circus
We previously discussed whether Royal Lichtenstein Quarter-Ring Sidewalk Circus should be in the contemporary circus entry. I have now instead done it own separate entry with street theater troupe as you suggested for its category. If you see any problems with it let me know.Dgabbard (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating this. The article looks great. AtticusX (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ThanQ !!!
hi,, thanks for the guidance...i`ll keep that in mind. suggestions r always welcomed.


 * _Friendly,
 * DRAGON BOOSTER.
 * Dragon Booster (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Théâtre de la foire
Thanks for your work on this! Best. -- Klein zach  01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja
Can you use your wizard's wand on this one? I just went by today and this has become a nightmare, needs to go to GAR in my opinion, but if someone can salvage it off now, I'll hold off. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Willing to help me out?
Would you be willing to help me keep an eye on Kaavalan? I saw you did some fixing up of the article. I'm just worried that once the semi-protection time is up, the IP vandals are just going to show up again. They seem to be promoting different agendas based on the actors that they like the best. It's really aggravating. Silver seren C 22:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. I've added it to my watchlist. AtticusX (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate to use term South Asian
In regards to your comments on a few changes, the use of the term South Asia is more appropriate as it does not impose or tilt the bias towards any specific nation in that part of the world. There seems to be many articles were different Wiki users are pushing their POV and I have found that many articles have been re-written to ensure a specific POV is seen. However subtle, a more neutral and fair perspective would be to factor in both sides of the equation and allow for a more fact based article without encouraging the pushing of nationalistic POV or otherwise hence the reason for my changes to more neutral terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Keyan20/ Help
Hi, AtticusX. I received your point and as you claim I understood replacing the same sentences used in magazines, or websites cannot be used here. I need some help here. I might be wrong in one way, but the other - why not you can improve on its construction by editing in a neat and correct order satisfying all with proper grammer making use of the same source/references I gave. Meanwhile I will also try to do. Afterall, we all are here to improve wiki right??. So lets help each other. And thanks for your kind notification.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

zakuta101/want help
Hi, I have an notability template on the article Punjab International Public School please help me to save article and give me suggestions to what i do ? Please help me to resolve this issue I m waiting for your this kind help.I will be very thankful to you.--Zakuta101 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone over and done what I could to clean up the article. Unfortunately, Google does not provide much in the way of reliable sources to establish the school's notability. All I can find are webpages that confirm its existence. The school doesn't seem to have a website of its own. I don't know what to recommend, unless you know where to find a publication that goes into more detail than merely mentioning the school's name. AtticusX (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Baloch people
Hey, I appreciate your say in the current title image issue at Baloch people, but my contributions to the article have all been referenced and the previous image undermines the article and facts. And when I tried to replace it with a different one, it was later reverted with the previous images.

The page has not seen any healthy contribution at all since it was changed. And of course I have not taken those photos myself which I hope you know is very hard in this case as it seems you are aware of the geography and issues. Does that mean the whole article should be compromised due to this?

Please also consider the current situation of the geography these people live in. Thanks for your help. Usualphonexs (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern for the accuracy and quality of the images used to illustrate the Baloch people article. But none of this addresses the most basic issue with the images you have uploaded :  they are unsourced.  If you gathered the images by doing a Google search and copying images from other websites, one or more of them is likely copyrighted and/or illegal for use here.  There are other ways to find legal images for use besides taking the photos yourself.  But you must accurately document where everything came from in the uploaded file's description, or it will be deleted, because Wikipedia has very strict rules regarding the uploading of copyrighted content. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:Image use policy before uploading any more images. AtticusX (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by a user
A certain user is constantly reverting edits at the Joseph Vijay page and practically vandalising it. I see that you've previously warned this user multiple times about his actions on his talk page (which he has reverted). He's starting an edit war and after I told him to stop, he's vandalised my own talk page. I reported the user at Wikiquette alerts, but I think it would be much more helpful if he was banned from editing from seeing his history. Please see the recent edit history at the Joseph Vijay article for the user in question. I was wondering if there was anything else we could do to get him blocked? EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would categorize Yuvrajask's recent edits at Joseph Vijay as unconstructive, but not obvious vandalism. Their earlier edits at Ajith Kumar were more clearly intended as vandalism; they went so far as to try to recruit other editors to disrupt that page. Their personal attacks on your talk page are unacceptable, and your reporting of this at Wikiquette alerts was a good step.  If Yuvrajask does any more edits that are purely disruptive in nature, I would encourage you to report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism to get them blocked. AtticusX (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. As of now he seems to have stopped his nonsense edits. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

*shakes you*
I don't believe it. They're actually adding references on Kaavalan! The IPs/new accounts are actually adding references!!! Silver seren C 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Incredible!... AtticusX (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

reason for undoing edits backed with references on article Jat muslim
hi i noticed some edits were reverted by you on article Jat Muslim even though they were backed by references. the article mentions as the history of Jats as being related to romas. Now DNA has also proved that Jats are related to serbs but why go there? why not just document what is recorded by ethnographers over the past few hundred years which is what i was trying to do. --Qaleechpuri (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which edits are you referring to? Your edit history shows you've only edited Jat Muslim once, in this minor edit, which was not reverted.  If you are referring to one of the more recent series of edits by IP editors, most of those were reverted for one of two reasons:  1) they were unsourced edits replacing sourced content, or 2) their contents were copied word-for-word from other texts, creating unencylopedic passages (e.g. sudden lapses into the first person: "though to my mind the term Rajput..." and "I think that the two now form a common stock...") and potentially creating copyright violations.  (Copyrighted books, articles, and other external sources may be used as a source of ideas and information, but not of sentences.) Feel free to re-edit the article to reflect your desired changes, but if you do, just be careful to avoid these pitfalls! AtticusX (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

City name in Rabindranath Tagore article
Thanks AtticusX, for the user talk page comment. Yes, I did see the summary for that edit. It made me feel that the editor may have been involved in a case of sneaky vandalism. Referring to an edit where he/she was just updating the name of the city, he/she also deleted the related information of province and state. I actually don't have a preference for either name. But edited the fields on the principle that the name of the city as it was during the time that the field refers to should be the one mentioned alongside the modern name if that is different. So for a person born or died in Londinium, the birth or death field should read: Londinium (modern London), Roman Britain, Roman Empire. 89.187.142.72 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't looked for the practice spelled out in any guideline, but like you, I've seen this done in other infoboxes, and I think it's a good practice. It should be worthwhile to look in the Manual of Style and Wikipedia project pages to see if this practice is spelled out. Otherwise, maybe it can be suggested for discussion. 89.187.142.72 (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Political entity in power can be placed elsewhere in the article or linked through as it is superflous here; geographic location is sufficient. Kolkata was and is the current name of the city, and temporal changes in this name during this period is merely a british point of view/interpretation. There is no such thing as official, it was simply an imposed official. In the case of Londinium, this was the actual name at the time, and was regonised by all. However, the name Calcutta was imposed during British Rule, and is merely their 'wrong' spelling of it. The modern name Kolkata should now be used, as this was the original and present name of the city. Please kindly leave it as Kolkata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florence foucault (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Florence. You should add a comment on the talk page of Rabindrath Tagore, where other editors can see and respond to your opinion. I will remain neutral on this issue until I see a broader consensus emerge. AtticusX (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed
at WP:HELPDESK. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ref: Your removal of valid sources
In reference with Your removal of valid sources

Thanks for the information, however, I am removing external links and citations leading to websites which do not have either credibility or are absolutely fraudulent, for example I have seen people adding a certain website as the official homepage of a person though it wasn't the said person's homepage at all.

Still I would like to trouble you more by asking for some help, and that is if you can point me towards any such article from where I removed a link which was valid, it will be of great help to me in order to understand where I went wrong.

One more thing, sometimes I remove from the external links section wherein the link should have been under Foot Notes.

Thanks and Regards

Fanofbollywood (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response - I've left a follow-up message on your talk page with examples. AtticusX (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP Edit to Utah
Thanks for looking further into my correction of Utah. After looking at it more closely, I can see that the subject is actually "states;" "it" is involved in the clause "it is," as opposed to the second clause that I mistakenly corrected. Goes to show, I suppose, that even grammar nerds such as myself can get careless! Thanks again, Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, no prob. Of the sentence structures that DO boggle even grammar nerds, this is one. (Bit of self-referential syntax humor there, bahahaha!) AtticusX (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous conversation
Hello, sorry I could not reply to your response earlier as I was away. The situation is a little complicated and I am finding it hard to spent enough time on it. But anyways sorry to be a little suspicious on your edits. Usualphonexs (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all right. You're new to the procedures of editing. Since you ran into copyvio problems last time you compiled an image collage, I would advise that you request the assistance of an editor who is solidly familiar with image use policy to help you put together a new collection of non-copyvio images, and to make sure the images are tagged with the right licenses before adding them to the article. And maybe don't stitch the portraits together -- that way, if a copyright issue or other question arises with one of your pictures, it won't doom the whole collection. AtticusX (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

94.219.196.21's claims and sources regarding Ahmad Zahir's ethnicity
Can you please take a look at the bottom of Talk:Ahmad_Zahir's talk page. Just noticed, an edit war started between two IPs. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Rajinikanth
With regard to your reversal of my edits, I personally feel that "Kannada-chauvinistic" is more appropriate than "pro-Kannada". You call someone "pro"-something only in the context of some issue and if you consider groups that oppose Rajinikanth as "pro-Kannada", then it naturally implies that Rajinikanth is "anti-Kannada". Now, only a small segment of the Kannada populace consider Rajinikanth as anti-Kannada and I feel that calling these groups "Kannada-chauvinistic" is better enough. And then, I feel the usage of the term "negative roles" is more appropriate than "antagonistic roles". While the term "antagonist" is acceptable, the usage of the term "antagonistic" is not-so-good English. And I consider your edit summary here as rude. It looks like you are accusing a well-established editor of intentional POV-pushing which is very much against WP:AGF.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 07:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your edits. I apologize if I offended you with my edit summary ("Rv POV (chauvinistic?) and sentence rewrite that was a step backward in quality"); that was not my intent.  I still disagree with your use of the word "chauvinistic" in an encylopedia article — it is typically used as a pejorative term, and the word means that the subject's patriotism or support for the cause is "excessive or prejudiced" (New Oxford Dictionary) — and so it's a bit of a shock to see it used in an encyclopedia article.  But I am relieved to know that you at least have a rationale for your use of the word, and were not just trying to be pejorative.  I don't understand your claim that the use of the term "antagonistic characters" is a bad use of English. And I stand by my reservations about the quality of that sentence.  "He initially performed" does not need commas between every word; and the use of "cult status as a hero" is the kind of language that needs direct support from a reliable source. I'm not saying it isn't true; I'm saying it's doubly important in popular articles to make sure all the verbiage is clearly verifiable.  Indian actor articles struggle continually with the inflation of praise: everyone's fans love to come along and turn them into gods, as I'm sure you've witnessed. I've even seen fans copy peacock phrases verbatim from one actor's article to another, as an absurd way of ensuring that their own favorite actor doesn't come up short. Yikes!  Rajinikanth is one case for whom "cult status as a hero" could probably be justified, but to avoid contributing to the escalation of unsourced puffery among multiple articles, I think it's really important to ground all such claims in verifiability, e.g. with a footnote or two attached to the sentence.  Those were my concerns. AtticusX (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the compliments and the "Citation Barnstar". Can you just check this article Jeevitha Saagaram? The film's production has not started and even the scripting is not complete. ASAP propose that article for deletion per WP:PROD. For some reasons, I can't do that. -- Arfazph (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done! AtticusX (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Arfazph (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to humanism
I've noticed you've been adding back in links to Humanism following the deletion of the article on Humanism (life stance). It seems to me that many of those links would be better to Secular humanism, which is a much more specific term. In my view, if Humanism (life stance) is to stay deleted, much of its content should be located in Secular humanism rather than Humanism. Certainly, people like Harry Stopes-Roe and Barbara Smoker would identify themselves as secular humanists, rather than purely "humanists" in a wider philosophical sense. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. If, as in the cases you've mentioned, the article's contents do support changing the visible wording to "secular humanism", I would support doing exactly that -- changing the link to secular humanism, without using a pipe to hide the "secular" part.  I think the more specific usage would need to be merited by something specific.  The cases you mentioned are good examples.  Many of the uses I've come across while cleaning up after the backlink deletion do not appear to specify in the article whether the humanism was secular or not.


 * That's my 2 cents, as a secular humanist myself. I was puzzled as to the deletion of Humanism (life stance), but hey. AtticusX (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more annoyed than puzzled, but we'll see. One of the problems is that some secular humanists reject the term "secular humanism" - as here - hence the term Humanism (capital H), or indeed Humanism (life stance).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fan version of page Kamal Haasan
Hello AtticusX, why is the page tagged for "Fan's point of view" issue. Winning 3 National awards and getting recognized Internationally, Best Actor: Swathi Muthyam,Sagara Sangamam at Asian International Festival is isn't proof enough of recognized as top actor? Pls let me know what kind of reference is neutral. Imemadhu (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Imemadhu (talk)


 * I have had a go at removing the more adulatory portions, I believe it is now free of the fan pov. Imemadhu has put in a lot of hardwork with sourcing and coverage. Three sections have been removed completely - one for copyvio, one for BLP violation (the self admitted bankruptcy part) and one for undue (quotes on him by others). The first two were removed by another editor and third by me. Atticus, can you take a look now and see if the fanpov and npov tags can be removed?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will take a look. That quotefarm section was probably the one that worried me the most for compliance with WP guidelines. Kudos, then, to Imemadhu for his diligent work providing sources. AtticusX (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks AtticusX! I want to mention that Kamal Haasan, being a top actor, is one of the loudest voices in the Industry and actively involved in improving the standards, beyond his own films. It is something, that never comes out as loudly in public circles or News media, I wanted to have the section - "Torch Bearer of Film Industry" to highlight the same. Suggest, alternative. I do know I will get a lot of content. So, just to balance, the worst worries of AtticusX, regd Torchbearer and Quotes sections was also my work ;)


 * Imemadhu (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have further questions about how to neutrally present material, I recommend that you post your proposed content to Talk:Kamal Haasan, where multiple editors can have the chance to respond and help you navigate Wikipedia's guidelines. AtticusX (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal quotes by Kamal Haasan
Would that be allowed? Imemadhu (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, quotations are great, but not presented as a miscellaneous list in a stand-alone section. WP:QUOTEFARM says, "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section."  Quotes are often deemed very useful content in Wikipedia, but only when they are threaded into the article's prose as a way of adding detail to the narrative.  In other words, we're supposed to tie it into the prose of the article rather than letting it sit out there disconnected from everything. WP:QUOTEFARM gives a pretty good overview of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the overuse of quotations, etc.


 * For similar reasons, biographical articles are not supposed to have freestanding Trivia sections (see WP:BLPSTYLE) -- as with quotes, we're supposed to integrate any miscellaneous facts into the flow of the article. AtticusX (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rawalakot
You removed the Title Shaikh from Ghulam Ahmad. In Pakistan that is his name so I am not sure what you are talking about trueblood (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shaikh is an honorific term commonly used to designate an elder of a tribe, a revered wise man, or a scholar. According to the title and infobox of Ghulam Ahmad's article, his proper name is simply "Ghulam Ahmad". If, as you claim, "Shaikh" is really part of his name, his article should be moved to "Shaikh Ghulam Ahmad". Wikipedia has a policy discouraging the use of honorific titles: WP:HONORIFIC. AtticusX (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the section that you quote, it is the most confusing piece of information that I have every read. Maybe you can put it in simple english. As I see it says that an horofic may be used.

75.15.203.155 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 in Pakistan
sports and death section needed to be expanded HunterZone (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

CdS - Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for the acknowledgement and helping ce my contributions&mdash;definitely appreciated. Brent.austin (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, thank you! It's really great to see those Cirque du Soleil show articles improving and accumulating some meaty content! AtticusX (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anu Haasan
Hello

Would you please stop messing around with Anu's page. I am trying to keep it accurate and would appreciate it if you would stop putting incorrect information on it

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay66 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not adding information; I'm requesting a citation. I've requested a source for the date of Anu Haasan's wedding, since the date was altered and the references supporting a more recent wedding were removed.  You removed the  tag; I restored it because the sentence still needs a reference, for obvious reasons. I suggest you cite your source if you have one. If you don't, the info doesn't belong, per WP:BLP guidelines. AtticusX (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper articles you linked were incorrect. Just because the Indian press picked up on the wedding 3 months after the event doesnt make them correct. As for my source - I am Anu's husband and was at the wedding. It happened on the date at the place stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay66 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your intent is appreciated. Nonetheless, your close personal connection to the subject and status as a participant in the event doesn't change the fact that all material added to Wikipedia ultimately needs to be attributable to a reliable published source.  Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion here.  If you cannot find a single published source that supports your information, then the best we can do is abstain from mentioning the date.  Wikipedia does not allow original research (first-hand information), for a variety of reasons. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines before accusing other editors of "messing around" when they are trying to ensure the editing process follows the rules. I would specifically suggest you check out WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:COI. AtticusX (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. This is why I cannot understand why the page, which was correct for several months, was updated with a spurious date of "January 2011". I have had a look at many of the articles that came out at the end of January and not one of them gave a date for the wedding. And yet you still changed the date on Anu's page and attributed the information to two of those webpages - Deccan Chronicle and Behind Woods if memory serves. Why was this allowed if the date needed to be verified?

"Verifiability not truth" is a wonderfully Orwellian phrase. If I cannot prove, online, that I got married on 4th November then it did not happen. Big Brother would be very proud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay66 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your insistence that I was the one who added the incorrect date to the article is mistaken. All I've added to the article is references, and when you removed those references, a request for replacement references. As you can see from the article's history, it was an anonymous IP who added the wedding date as January 31.  Lord knows where they got their info.  I fact-checked their edit and found immediate problems.  A quick Google search showed me that exact date was not possible, because at least one newspaper had reported the event on January 30th.  So I removed the obviously incorrect date, but I left the month in as an intermediate step that seemed reasonable at the time, operating on the apparently mistaken assumption that if various newspapers were suddenly simultaneously reporting an event, it would be odd for the event to have happened over a month ago.  It still seems odd, but hey, apparently sometimes the media all miss the same boat for two months.  Then the date was altered again, presumably by you at an anonymous IP address. You removed the references without explanation (that's one case in which it's especially important to use the edit summary to explain your rationale). For many recent change patrollers, that alone would be enough to flag your edits as vandalism, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt because it seemed possible that the date was under earnest dispute.  Regardless, some sort of source would be needed to settle the question.  Thus my  tag.  Having failed to find a source that settled the issue either way, I hoped that someone else would eventually be able to find a source that gave more exact details.  That was not intended as the final resting point in that section's improvement, obviously.


 * I am kind of amazed to hear you scorn Wikipedia's policies that say that verifiability trumps "The Truth" in editing articles. Have you seen what happens when vandals try to insert spurious info in Anu Haasan's article or others? Often it is only by cross-checking info against third-party sources that deliberately disruptive edits and sheer error are discernible from good edits.  For example, this edit, which altered Anu Haasan's date of birth.  Or this edit, where someone tried to replace your name in the article. There is no foolproof way for anyone to tell that your edit was any more or less reliable than those edits, especially as you were editing as an anonymous IP at the time — they were all unsourced and offered no explanation in the edit summary.  Dates, numbers and names are frequent targets for vandals, particularly in Indian entertainment-related articles.  If your wedding date isn't buttressed with a reference now, it's likely that someone will eventually try to tamper with it.


 * Anyway, my general point was: no single edit or editor is 100% reliable, myself included, but by demanding verifiability and putting the burden of proof on the editor who adds new material, we gradually improve the project's reliability over time while still permitting anonymous edits.  I don't share your opinion that these minimum standards are "Orwellian" in any way; I see them as a practical set of guidelines that were arrived at and refined by the consensus of many, many editors over the course of many discussions.  Verifiability is simply a strategy for maintaining the viability of an encyclopedia that is "editable by anyone".


 * Incidentally, I have removed Anu Haasan's article from my watchlist, so you will have to be the one to take it from here. AtticusX (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * AtticusX, you have been quoted as accepting the marriage edits to this article. Please see and comment on my talk page. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me. AtticusX (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)