Talk:Muthu Thandavar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

[edit] Bharatveer's reverts

PerhapsUser:Bharatveer should read Wikipedia is not a battleground before indulging in serial reverts on this article. I have repetedly stated that the references provided in the article, some of them available online to read provide supporting information for all the statements in the article. I would recommend the user to stop this repeated reverts and try and add something useful to the article. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 10:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Venu62's reverts of citation needed tags

User:Venu is repeatedly removing the citation needed tags from this article.This looks quite different from his "reputation" elsewhere in Wikipedia where he "demands" source for each and every line .It is no hard task to find the real reason .It is just that weblink he cites Chembur} , is a collection of speculations regarding muthuthandavar.-Bharatveer 11:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All I see are a bunch of links at the bottom. Readers cant be expected to read "all links" one by one to find out who said what, or whether anything that's mentioned in the article is actually from a reliable source or not. We do need references and citations wherever applicable, and till then, there's no harm in adding a few "citation needed" tags, to alert other editors to contribute citations and references. Mere reverts are not going to improve the article. As far as I see, there are several reverts today, so I suggest editors to remain cautious about WP:3RR. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a stub. Inline citations for stubs are not common. The referred article by Prof.Subramaniam does mention the details found in the article, whether they are 'speculations' or not is your merely your opinion. There is no harm in reading a few articles. - Parthi talk/contribs 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no rule like "once a stub, always a stub". All articles are born from stubs, there's no sense in being "stubborn" ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone has a problem with English, it has to be either me or you. I said there's no sense in being stubborn. I didnt suggest that it is pointed at you. I dont think theres a rule that citations/references are bad or forbidden or unusual for stubs­ either ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)