User talk:Tellicherrian

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Tellicherrian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Muhandes (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

November 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Thalassery. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Thalassery, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please peruse especially WP:NLIST which deals with the requirements from a list of people Muhandes (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Don't talk to me about improving the article when you are vandalizing it. The last reversion included violations of at least three guidelines. With these edits, you are not making the article better, you are making it worse. Muhandes (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Thalassery. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ''There are numerous other violations of rules and style guidelines such as WP:NLIST, MOS:BOLD, WP:NLIST. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before moving onward, or I will have to keep reverting your edits to maintain the quality of the article, which is a shame.'' Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize if I remove valid edits, but as you make huge edits which include so many violations, I am left with no other choice. It is obvious you are not experience in editing by Wikipedia rules, and I would like to help you in adding relevant material in the proper way. I propose that you discuss these edits first in the talk page if you are not certain. Specifically, if you want to add a notable person, it should be notable, cited and concise. notable is usually demonstrated by the person having an article about them. If you feel someone notable does not have an article, go ahead and create it. cited means you have to show a source that the person actually lived in the city, for verification purposes. Concise means that since the article is about the city, not the person, so all that is needed is a name, origin, occupation, and relation to the city if it isn't clear. Any discussion of the work of the person should be done in the person's article. Note for example how I treated Hermann Gundert. --Muhandes (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to help, but choose to ignore my advice, and together with what might be valid data, introduce violations of six different guidelines. If you want to add a person - add one person, and take care of notability and source. Don't just revert my edit as a whole, or I will keep reverting it back. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing Thalassery
The following is discussion moved from my talk page, in order to keep the discussion in one place.--Muhandes (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Muhandes, Its unfair on your part to delete frequently the section of the article "prominent writers" of the city. The included writers and painters are well known in their respective fields and proper work cited is given for majority of them.The details of the published works and the online link of Literature Academy are proper documentation.Deleting historical facts,historical truths relevant and that is consciously avoided in many places or wrongly and intentionally twisted by the polemical editors even in wikipedia sites are left unchecked.In such a situtatiion it is unfair that u show extra interest in deleting the matters which others edit and enter spending their valuable time. Thanks for your suggestions to include editorial summary.Kindly consider what I said and avoid deleting the most sugnificant part of the article "Thalassery" and help to upgrade wikipedia to a useful site for viewers.Wikipedia itself suggests to bold and not to be a coward. Consider my pleadings in an affirmative sense. Tellicheerian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellicherrian (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what fair or unfair has to do with it. First, remember that the article is about the place. Lists of citizens are very low priority. If you think a person is important, write an article about them. Second, there is a clear guideline requiring notability and source from the members of a list. For the ones I removed notability was not demonstrated, and mostly a source was not provided. If you want to improve the article, provide a reliable source for each member of the list, and create articles demonstrating notability for members which don't have one. In addition, your edits reinstate a variety of Manual of Style violations, which definitely make the article worse! Not to speak of inserting Original Research. You are, in fact, vandalizing your own article, which is sad. --Muhandes (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Muhandes, Kindly do not delete entire. May be I'm unaware of wiki ethics. If you find so I would like to quit from further edits.In my edits I added persons who live in Thalassery and are much attached to the cultural sphere of the city are added.Public speeches if it is reproduced in some book thats not original research. And how can books published by Academies and state language institutes are considered as not authentic. I have attended wikipedia workshops and gone through guidelines,but I admit not all guidelines. Still I feel ur deletions are an insult to the well known intellectuals of the city. Kindly ignore if what I say is "vandalism" as you call.Historical facts and others things will remain even without the article in wikipedia.So go ahead and delete whatever u feel but have the kindness to think of the real "vandalism" -in many polemical articles in wikipediA which remains unedited,untouched or deleted. Thanks. Tellicherian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellicherrian (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded in your own talk page with advice on how to add material about local notables, and what exactly is required. --Muhandes (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes, I dnt knw exactly where u belong to and what ur perceptions of the role of writers and artists in a city. I have no other intention but to highlight the literary and cultural significance of Thalassery. I feel that is as important as educatinal institutions and more important than info on restaurants and so. Works cited- I do follow standard documenation method and if its must that the cited should lead to another wikilink itself I dnt know what to say? But these methods are nt followed in number of wiki articles,where I cant find ur editing.Even Thalassery cite contained many insignificant persons for many years since the inception of wikipedia.Now only you seem to bother of these things. Thanks Tellicherrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellicherrian (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The previous is discussion moved from my talk page, in order to keep the discussion in one place.--Muhandes (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest we continue the discussion in one place - your talk page. What exists in other articles is irrelevant, see here and here. What I think of the role of editors is also irrelevant. What your intentions are is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the guidelines by which Wikipedia works, which were reached by consensus. I have stated above numerous times what these guidelines are so I am not going to repeat them. If you wont follow these regulations, I will revert your work, and if you continue to do so I will have no other choice but to report it. If you want to improve the article follow the regulations stated above. If you need help, ask, and I will try to explain further. And by the way, if you are in any way related to either Melvi or Suchethpr please say so now. --Muhandes (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes, The best advice for a relevant source of information is to find information that was from a site that includes something with a .gov, .org, or .edu ending to it or a reliable news article.Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.(General notability guideline).It seems you do not agree with these guidelines suggested by wikipedia.If you follow this you could not have deleted relevant matters.Sourcing

Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy)[1]. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."[5]

Verifiability, or the ability for the reader to confirm that content corresponds to the cited source is the standard. "Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter. References to blogs, personal websites and MySpace don't count – we need reliable sources."[5]

Content not based on reliable sources may be deemed original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. "A correlate to this notability criterion, crucial to the identity of the site, is the prohibition on original research, including the synthesis of previously published material."[3] You dont accept this also.What your comments and concerns make it feel that you are giving importance to your personal interets rather than wikipedia guidelines. And you said you would report.Its a kind of impotent threat.Its not suitable for a person authorized to verification raise such threats and your comments on the history page,I dont say anything: Pinarayi Vijayan is from Pinarayi not from Thalassery, first thing it was not me who added his name and second this your argument is improper and raises doubts abt ur interests. I never added synthesis of previously published article, but what is telecasted by the media and which is reprinted in a book I added.Book I added as I felt its necessary as a work cited. Thanks


 * Am I expected to understand any of this? What do these [1], [2] etc. refer to? Seems to me you are copy pasting something, but where from? I'll try to make sense of it anyway, but I can't promise I fully understand since what you write is barely legible.


 * 1) The first paragraph is something about the relevance of sources. Something about sites ending with .gov etc.? I'm not sure I fully understand what you want, but as I have no problem with the source this does not seem very relevant.
 * 2) The second paragraph says notability should be demonstrated through reliable sources. I couldn't agree more. It's exactly what I keep saying. If you want to establish notability for some person, create an article about them, and establish notability with reliable sources. I keep saying this, and from some odd reason you keep ignoring it.
 * 3) The third paragraphs is about verifiability. As I have no problem with the sources, this is again not very relevant.
 * 4) The fourth paragraph is about OR. My OR claim was about a section about "What Thalassery needs", which is clearly OR. I never said anything else of what you wrote is OR. Finally, you raise doubts about my interests. My only interest is improving Wikipedia. What I'm not sure of is what your interest is, but what you are doing is definitely not improving the article.


 * Let me summarize, in the hopes of moving forward. From some odd reason, you choose to ignore what I write and comment about other things, mostly irrelevant. I'll repeat my advice, in hopes that you wont ignore it this time, and we can move forward. The article is about Thalassery, not about the people that live, or used to live in it. Compared to the city, these people are trivial, and they add very little to the article. They should be mentioned only if they are 1) notable, 2) their relation to the city is verifiable, and 3) concisely. I wrote above how these three major things should be addressed, and I will not repeat it. What I suggest is that you add notable people to the article one by one, following these guidelines, and I will do my best to comment appropriately. If you are not sure, use the articles talk page. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NB. I see that you are actually taking my advice, adding one person at a time. I removed much of the text in the sake of conciseness. All of this belongs in the person's article. You can probably write an article about E. K. Janaki Ammal, she seems quite notable, and I'll be happy to help. However, both Ammal and Vijayan need a source showing they actually lived in Thalassery, can you provide that? --Muhandes (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes, In an article about India if Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru are included will you say that they are trivial as far as that article is concerned?Janaki Ammal ,she was born in Thalassery and did schooling here after that she moved to Madras as all used to do at that time for higher education.She maintained her Thalassery connection and Janaki Ammal memorial national seminars are conducted in Thalassery as people consider her as a renowned Thalasserian. Regarding M.N.Vijayan everyone knows Thalassery was the centre of his intellectual life.Even if one feels of ignoring his ideological contributions a large number of Thalasserians needed him as a psycho analyst and mentor.He was not interested in leaving Thalassery even in 1999 but some family situations compelled him to shift to kodungalloor. Munands,its really difficult to give explanations to you even regarding so renowned persons. If you find Ammal notable and M.N.vijayan not so its clear that your personal interest works.M.N.Vijayns contibutions can not be limited to a wiki article and he is one of the prominent intellectuals in India, but its really pity that he didnt write in English. Thanks.


 * I don't understand your problem. I found both of them notable, and they are both still in the article. I'm asking for a reliable source for purposes of verification that they were residents of Thalassery, per a very clear guideline that demands such a source proving that a person really is a member of the list of people. Do you really fail to grasp the importance of this? --Muhandes (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes, Your latest editing is commendable. I've been grasping the importance of your suggestion but when you ask trivial questions about people who are so well known in Thalassery ! I think you too have started grasping your own suggestions.Any way good editing. Thanks.
 * Thank you. I would like to point out this essay. It is better to write the article first on the person listed, and only then add it to the list. As the person is notable, finding resources should be trivial. --Muhandes (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of K. Raghavan to Thalassery - some comments
In the spirit of improvement, some comments about this addition.


 * Try to use the proper naming convention. In this case, a space between K. and Raghavan would have actually made the link point to the right article
 * Don't use "legendary", it is a peacock term.
 * Mentioning current age is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia will be here for in 10 years, would he still be 92 then? If you must mention an age, use the Age template. Beside, age belongs in the person's article, not the city's.
 * The list is alphabetized, try to keep it so.
 * Again, you did not provide a source that the person ever lived in the city (remember this guideline). For now I just tagged it, but someone else might just remove it since no source is provided.

Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes, There is a wiki article about K.Raghavan. I provided a link to that but it showed the page did not exist. Thanks for "peacock term" I'm hearing that for the first time.I think Padamsri k.Raghavan can be included, even though plenty of allegations are there regarding Padmasri in general his Padamasri was not a purchased one. I just copied a sentence from the news paper 96 year old legendary composer, that all.I'm not going to revert it,because I'm fed up of revert. But he is a notable Thalasserian. Thanks

December 2010
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Government Brennen College, Thalassery. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''I'm sorry, but we discussed this more than enough. Stop adding unsourced material. Another wikipedia article is not considered a reliable source.'' Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you now added to Government Brennen College, Thalassery actually verifies the fact (that the person is/was a lecturer at the institution). Adding a source which does not verify a fact is actually worse than not adding a source at all.--Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Muhandes, Kindly do not destroy yet another article in wikipedia as I edited it. What you are doing is absolutely rubbish and against the ethics of wikipedia. Your arguments are absolutely absurd.I have invited the attention of other wiki admins against the intentional vandalism you are engaged in." Here and Here" y don't u bother about the unverified factual errors and bluffs in Brennen College article. Again your threats like blocking, you report and block. I shall bring into notice of wiki admins about the unverified factual errors you added in many wiki articles. Unnecessary info u add and delete at your choice is nothing but irresponsibility and arrogance.


 * Be my guest to bring any administrator's attention you want. Your edits lack sources. That's as simple as that. If you knowingly keep adding unsourced material it is my duty to warn you that this is not acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. --Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)