User talk:Muhandes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The answers of your questions?

Q.He "said that it was truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community" - what was a truth? the fire? Ans. The fire was a sign a of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community because Mirza Tahir Ahmad on 2nd May 1998 said that a day before the fire anti-ahmadiyya sentiment accepted mubillah{debate} challenged and swore on Kaaba that, "Allah, we mullahs are true and Ahmadis are liars. As the are liars so your curse should be on them and the day after fire took place in holy city of Makkah. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said the accepting the debate challenged by mullahs and fire after their accepting the challenge is sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that after their sworing on Kaaba that, "We are true and Ahmadis are liars. They said the liars should be cursed. The day after fire took place and indicating that Allah is with Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and not with anti-ahmadiyya sentiment having mullahs.

Q. What does "being a truth" mean? This isn't in English. Ans.It was a sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the proof that Allah is with Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and not anti-Ahmadiyya sentiment having mullahs

Q. "He said that it was recorded that anti-Ahmadiyya sentiment mullahs swore on Kaaba that Allah Almighty we are true and Ahmadis and your curse should on them." - How is this relevant? What does it mean? Ans. On 2nd May 1998, as a recording of Muslim Television Ahmadiyya, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that, It is a record that anti-ahmadiyya sentiment accepted the mubillah {debate swore on Kaaba that Allah, we are true. Ahamdis are liars. Your curse should be on liars. He said that taking place of fire day after their sworing on Kaaba is a sign of truth of [[Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Q.He "said that it did not came on media because it was sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community." What did not "come on media"? What does "coming on media" even mean? Ans. While answering a question Mirza Tahir Ahamd said that the taking place of Makkah Fire 1997 did not come Pakistani or Arabic media because it was a sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Now as it was sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which is considered as a heretic by them. It was against the anti-ahmadiyya sentiment mullahs and others who opposed Ahmadiyya Muslim Community then it should come on Pakistani media and Arabic media which is in control of anti-ahmadiyya sentiment having muslims. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that why they raise this news which is a sign of their falsiness and truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One who has Tawah and piety can easily see that Allah is with us and not with them.

Q."He said no Ahmadi was not hurt." - So all Ahmadis were heart? Every single one of them? Ans. It quoted after listening to that urdu video which is a recording of Muslim Television Ahmadiyya. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that, "Not even a single Ahmadi was hurt and others who are having anti-ahmadiyya sentiment were being. Some of them were died because of fire physically touching and some died by falling

I hope that your are conveyed because of my answers, If you still having any confusion then you can watch the urdu video which is a recording of MTA International which I had a provided in the references. Thanks,--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Now after the answers, you should undo the removing of my editing of Ahmadiyya Reactions. There should be this heading and my editing.--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please continue the discussion where it was started. This helps keeping track of the discussion. I also suggest you read the talk page guidelines. The linking guidelines are also a good resource on how to use wikilinks. I also suggest to use the "Preview" button before saving the page

To the matter itself, I have read your response carefully, and I think I understand your answer. There are several problems with your edit. First, there is the neutrality of the discussion. We can't just bring one side of the argument. Did other leaders comment on the subject? Also, sayings, especially religious ones, are open to interpretation, which is why we use secondary sources. Do you have any reliable secondary source which report on this? Putting your own interpretation on the page is a violation of the original research policy. Lastly, both your English and your use of Wikipedia markup are below par. I will have to completely rewrite the section to remove all these issues. I know I have linked quite a lot of material, but if you want to constructively contribute to the English Wikipedia you will have to follow policy. --Muhandes (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I read that you have said that about religious interpretation. I want to ask that Jesus claimed to be Jewish Messiah. If you are Jew you say rabanic answers to his claim then you will say that he is not the true messiah. If you are Christain, you will say that Jesus was the long awaited messiah for Jews.

After answering to your and explaining the sayings of Mirza Tahir Ahmad then how can you say thatit is a religious interpretation only but it not a sign of truth of Ahmadiyya Muslim Commnnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask you for the fifth time - please read the talk page guidelines. You are making this hard on yourself and anyone who tries to discuss with you.

You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that all sayings are open to interpretation - even what Mirza Tahir Ahmad said is open to interpretation. All we have is the way you interpreted it - which is WP:OR. We need coverage by independent reliable sources. Also, you did not answer my WP:NPV concern at all. By the way, did you read WP:NPV and WP:OR? If not, how are you expecting to discuss them? --Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A Friendly Challenge

It is a very very friendly challenge that my dear friend you have deleted my article of Tahir Ahmad (ludo player). Some day you this article will be made and you will not be able to delete it because I Insha Allah Tala will become a notable personality.--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove Tahir Ahmad (ludo player). All I did was point out the notability problem, and an admin saw it and removed it. If the person will become notable, an article will be proper. In fact, I might write it myself. For now, he isn't. the same applies for other articles you keep writing, e.g. the Playboy pornography ones - they are not notable. Please read WP:N about general notability. WP:NF about notability of films, WP:BIO about notability of people, WP:CRIN about notability of cricket. Or, don't read any of them, and keep wasting your time on articles which are removed just as soon as you write them. --Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the entire problem is if that person is right now notable or not. Visit Pakistan and you will get to know that he is a famous, successful and notable ludo player. He has won many titles in ludo and is a renowned and experienced player. I'm also going to add links and references so that my sources can be verified that all information about that ludo player is true.--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked you multiple times to read WP:TPG but you refuse to do so. I don't know why I bother answering you, when you keep ignoring friendly and helpful suggestions.

I asked you multiple times to read the relevant policies about notability, WP:N and WP:BIO in this case, but again, you refuse to do so, thus wasting your own efforts, and other editors'. In a nutshell, you are confusing popularity/fame with notability. A person can be famous and successful, yet not notable. You talk about adding sources that "can be verified that all information ... is true", yet this is a whole different guideline, WP:V, which means little when it comes to notability. If you think Mr. Ahmad is notable, all you should have done was follow very simple instructions which were present at the top of the page, and the article would have been kept. But of course, you prefer to waste your time and mine and not read instructions. I urge you – read the guidelines. --Muhandes (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vinita Gupta

Calmer Waters 08:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ksawery Jasieński

As suggested, I've added a ref to this article. The info was originally taken from Polish wiki (to bring them into line), and I've reused that ref as well. I don't speak Polish but the relevant bit is towards the end of the ref'd article. Hope it suffices. Answer on my page if there's a problem or you want a chat. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Baghela merges

Hello, Muhandes. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Baghel.2C_Baghela.2C_Vaghela.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Muhandes (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Accessdates missing for Template:Certification Table Entry

Hi, could you please fix the template: check for example Seili, I added the parameter "accessdate=July 9, 2011", but there's no "Retrived July 9, 2011" in the reference. Thanks! -- Frous (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In fact, the issue was not with the template but with the article. Note that you use {{certification Cite Ref}} for reusing the same reference. The reference listed is in fact the one created first - from {{certification Cite Ref}} in this case. This one did not have a date so it did not show up. I added it now. --Muhandes (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

baao

i reedited the page of BAAO I hope what I did was correct, do inform if it did not meet your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobong23b (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my standards. The material you are adding is copy pasted from another source, potentially violating their copy right. The message I added at your own talk page has links to pages with more information about copyrights. --Muhandes (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

i added the same material but i did place the reference of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobong23b (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OK to steal, if you say who you stole from? I urge you to carefully read about Copyrights. If you want to use the material as it is, you need permission from the copyright holder. Of course, you may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. --Muhandes (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

of course stealing is not OK. any person, whether educated or not knows that principle. i just need help and not rationalization in this matter. i just did what i understood from the rules, and clearly i made a mistake. i have no intention to ruin Wikipedia of whatsoever. anyway thank you i will do my very best though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobong23b (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed harsh. I understand that you aim well and I assume good faith. I just felt it necessary to explain clearly why placing a reference does not relate to violating copyrights. --Muhandes (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki editor plugin/gadget suggestion

Hi Muhandes, hope you had a good trip. I myself have been a little tied up with my job for last couple of week and made very few contributions. Anyways, do you use any editing gadget? Sometimes editing, specially wiki tables, becomes a little messy. Any suggestions for me? - abhi (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a good trip indeed. I use WikEd from time to time, mainly for search and replace. If I have more complicated things to do I copy the text and dump it into Vim, where I can do all sort of manipulations. None of this helps much for tables though. --Muhandes (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions. Will try to find something for tables. - abhi (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Prof Raj Reddy Wiki Page Editing - Regarding

Hello, The Wiki page of Professor Raj Reddy was recently edited by you which contains less information compared to the earlier page. I gathered appropriate information for the page with reference and just want to know the reason from you for editing the web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.88.150 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are User:Srinimisha. Please remember to log-in in the future.

As I stated very clearly, on both the edit summary, the talk page and another talk page, your edit is completely unsourced. Furthermore, you have removed the sources which were available in the original article. Sourcing is critical for verification, and it is much more important than "more information", which is why I reverted your edit. Please do not introduce any more unsourced information. --Muhandes (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I work under Prof Raj Reddy, for editing his Wikipedia page. I spoke to him in person today and certain changes were told by him which are done and uploaded on Wikipedia. If you find any unsourced or improperly cited material, please highlight the content and leave me a message which will be taken care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinimisha (talk • contribs) 05:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you work under Prof Raj Reddy you have a very clear conflict of interest and should not edit the page at all. All the information you added lacks sources - you did not add a single citation. --Muhandes (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Can you mention the Keywords(say University name etc) which need to be edited, so that I can know what you exactly think is inappropriate to be uploaded. It will definitely be provided with references and external links.

Please read the talk page guidelines. There is no need for a new section while we still discuss the same issue. You should also sign your comments (put ~~~~ at the end of the line).

As for what requires a source, the answer is simple - Everything. Here a sentence broken down for every point an unsourced fact is mentioned:

• Raj Reddy was born in Katur, Andhra Pradesh, India ?
• He received a BE degree from the College of Engineering, Guindy (now part of Anna University), India in 1958?
• and a MTech degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New South Wales, Australia, in 1960?
• He received a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from Stanford University in 1966?
• He was the first doctoral student to graduate at Stanford under Turing Award winner and AI pioneer, John McCarthy?

And so on. Every single fact needs a source. You can, of course, use one source to verify multiple facts.

I take this opportunity to warn you again against editing an article for which you have a conflict of interest. --Muhandes (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this message on your Wiki page. "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011)"

Can you give any explanation on it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinimisha (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanation above, please read it carefully. Again, please read Help:Talk page and also remember to sign your messages. --Muhandes (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Re

Hey, I understand I had looked at another album article and had thought it would look better in that format. But if its incorrect, then its fine to have it before. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Christianity - A Journey from Facts to Fiction

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christianity - A Journey from Facts to Fiction , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Legend II (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-minor edits

Please, learn what WP: minor edits are, and possibly change defaults of your skin or wiki client. Edits such as [1][2][3] are above any reasonable threshold of a "little" change. Contrary, adding categories to an article is a minor edit. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll do my best not to forget in the future. --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Intercontinental Supercup

That was to create redirects to the article itself. So anyone can type Recopa Intercontinental, Intercontinental Supercup or Intercontinental Champion's Supercup and it will lead to the same thing. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please answer in the same place where the discussion started in order to keep the discussion in one place.

For the issue itself, moving the article around is not the way to create redirects, and you ended up with the wrong title. Just create a new article with the redirect if you want one. Fixing it will require administrator assistance. --Muhandes (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Muhandes (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

References Provided

Hie References are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinimisha (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

References? This has gone way beyond references. Please see your own talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NSW Lighthouses template

Hello Muhandes - just wanted to let you know I've changed this template, Template:Lighthouses of New South Wales. It looked like your last edit was a mistake? Azza-bazoo (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was obviously a mistake. --Muhandes (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiConference India 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Muhandes, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. Official website Facebook event 100 day long WikiOutreach Scholarship form
As you are part of WP:IND community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience.Thank you for your contributions.
We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

naveenpf (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm half a world away. --Muhandes (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Cut and paste move on Music Canada

Thank you very much. I didn't know how to do. SJ (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just ask for help next time, I'm sure many editors will be happy to assist. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Voice of Rock

Hello, Keraunoscopia. I brought up the Voice of Rock website on the WikiProject Albums talk page to see whether or not it can be an acceptable addition to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, and it hasn't received any responses as of this message. Some feedback concerning the website would be welcome. Cheers. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Keraunoscopia but anyway. I'm afraid I don't know much about reviews so I can't contribute there. I find that if I don't get any response there are two things to do. First, after a week add something like "Doesn't anyone have an opinion on this?" as a way of bumping the message. If it still doesn't get responses I'll add something like "I guess everyone agrees it is appropriate" or even mention acquiescence, and add it to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Sorry I couldn't help in any substantial way. --Muhandes (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. Also, I was afriad I'd call you Keraunoscopia, because I also sent this message to that person as well, so sorry about that. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Request explanation to removed contribution

cur | prev) 11:31, 26 July 2011 Muhandes(talk | contribs) (8,236 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 173.63.190.188 (talk): Unsourced. (TW)) (undo)

The above referenced contribution was removed. Please enlighten me as to why the edite was deleted and tell me what guideline to follow in order to keep the edit from being removed. Can you email me explanation via my email address? My email is chicomaria@aol.com. Thank you Tiberio Fabricante — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.190.188 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with your edit. The first one, which is what the edit summary said, is that your edit lacks a citation showing a reliable source for verification. In other words, you need to bring a source which proves Tiberio Garchitorena Fabricante lived in Tigaon. The second one is that Tiberio Garchitorena Fabricante may not be notable. You need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is usually done by creating an article about the subject. Both of these requirements follow from the policy about lists of people. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Srinimisha Sockpuppet

Thanks for your note on my talk page about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinimisha. I have blocked the sockpuppet account, and reset the block on the master account to start its 48 hours again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

hi

Thanks for the msg. Cheers!

Es Dziekuje (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to explanation

The reference you needed for this edit is a news report published by a U.S. based Filipino newspaper, The Filipino Reporter, Year 30 No. 34 National Edition NYC/August 9-15, 2002, Tel: 212-967-5784.http://www.filipinoreporter.us/

Notability is suppoerted by the article. Any successful descendant of Don Andres Garchitorena is notable.

How can we send a copy of the article? Or how can we paste it on this message format? 173.63.190.188 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Any successful descendant of Don Andres Garchitorena is notable" is a very wrong argument. One does not inherit notability. Wikipedia has a notability policy. Let me quote: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". That would require much more than a news report in the Filipino Reporter I'm afraid. I'm not an expert on US judges notability, but it seems like even chief judges of the New Jersey Supreme Court aren't always considered notable, so it will come down to how much significant coverage you can dig up. --Muhandes (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhet Genc

Dear Muhandes,

The article titled Ruhet Genç was deleted just beacuse it does not match the "significance" criteria. I have difficulties to understand and accept this since the person I mean Ruhet Genç is a well-known author who wrote five books and five book chapters not only in Turkish but also in English. Moreover one of his English books is available in a world wide site, amazon.com and one more will be there very soon. His bookchapters are published in the book called Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research and if you can just google it you will see how the authors are significant(http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/well-being/book/978-94-007-2287-3). I dont mention the articles he published in international scientific journals and presentations in international conferences.

I hope these explanations were unnecessary and it was just a mistake.

Regards,

Es Dziekuje (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your article was removed because you failed to mention why the person was notable. Just being an author of books and articles is not enough. There are several criteria to consider. You may want to show he is notable as an academic, here's the guideline. Or he may be notable as an author - see this guideline. If this does not apply, he may be notable as a person, see this guideline. Finally, there is the basic notability criteria. Whatever you choose to use, the article should make it clear why the person is notable, which your article didn't signify. See for example how the article of a book author and academic you might heard of starts: "Isaac Asimov was an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books. Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and over 9,000 letters and postcards...". The article starts with explaining who the person was/is and immediately after, why he is notable. I hope this helps. --Muhandes (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of best-selling Latin albums in the US

Hello Muhandes, while I was looking the most shipped Latin album in the RIAA site, I had an idea. Why not make a list of best-selling Latin albums in the US. So when I ahead and made a sandbox for it right here. What do you think? Erick (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good list, I'm surprised it didn't exist before. However, why are you limiting the sources to RIAA certifications? If a reliable sources exist (for example, Billboard has numbers for many of them) why not use it? Also note that RIAA certifies for shipments, not sales, so you should rename the column, or even better use Shipments (Sales), for cases where you have both.--Muhandes (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

True, after all it's a draft of what it could like. I'm also faced with another dilemma and that's the certification years. Take Amor Prohibido, which was certified 20x Platinum last year. The amount of shipments of that album would be 2 million, but Mi Tierra was certified 16x with the old certification level, which brings it to 3.2 millions units shipped. EDIT: At any rate, I created the page right here. I'll go look for specific sales figure when I have the time. Erick (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, I think I just found out something. Do you remember when you told me about the RIAA certification year and asked me to have a look? Remember the link was saying how all the older albums were updated but we weren't sure if meant the shipments stayed the same or it changed with the new one? Well I saw [4], and the certifications and sales do not match what is on the RIAA and articles. Take Gilberto Santa Rosa, on the Carnegie Hall album, the RIAA says that it received a 2x Platinum on April 25, 2002, a month before this issue was written, but now it says 2x on the RIAA page. Another example is Ottmar Liebert's album. It says it's 1.4 million, but with the certification, it says 2.8 million units shipped. The newer shipments would be 14x which would be more accurate. I am confused to say in the least (it was in this discussion. I tried looking at the archive but didn't work either. Maybe I'll ask RIAA themselves. Erick (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it would be best to ask RIAA themselves. My guess would be that the correct numbers are indeed 200,000 and 1,400,000. This would suggest that RIAA redid the certifications for either all or some of the database. If they did it for all the database it would be simple to correct, but if they only redid some of the database (maybe only artists which received further certifications?) I have no idea how we can be certain. For now, as we have a clear source with Billboard for these albums, I think it would be prudent to use the lower numbers and give Billboard as an additional source. I'll do that for these two albums. --Muhandes (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more evidence I have found, look at Shakira's The Remixes': [5], Chayanne's Grandes Exitos, [6], Cristian Castro's Lo Mejor Mi, [7]. Even the certification for Gloria Estefan's album, Mi Tierra says it's 1.6 million [8]. To finish, off, this ad, says that Sanz's album was 3x Disco de Platino. With the old standard, that would 600,000 shipments, but with the new, it would be 300,000. The RIAA website lists it as 6x, the same number as the old level. Yeah, I am now more convinced than ever that the RIAA did update the certifications for older albums. Erick (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The current implementation was based on what Harout72 suggested, so I asked him to comment before I change the implementation.--Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. I would not compare the sales figures found in the Billboard magazine or elsewhere with RIAA certifications, as RIAA goes by units shipped. An album such as Black & Blue by Backstreet Boys may have shipped 8 million units, but sold only 5 million (for example), and the latter figure will be seen in the Billboard magazine, whereas the shipment in the RIAA's database will show 8x Platinum. And they don't match. But that doesn't create any confusion for us because certification-levels on standard format has never been adjusted. But in the case of Latin-certifications, a difference that big arises doubts since the levels for Latin formats have been adjusted down the road.

While it's difficult to tell whether older releases have received automatic updates as the certification-dates are not updated, I must admit that Eric has provided solid evidence proving that older certified Latin albums may have received that automatic update as stated on RIAA website. I did research on my own today on some Latin albums. I took Ricky Martin's MTV Unplugged, which has received its first Latin-type Platinum in Dec. 2006 for shipment of 200,000, I compared its 2006 Platinum certification with what currently RIAA's database has for it. The 2x Platinum in RIAA's database correlates with the original single Platinum. That proves that it has received an automatic update without having its certification date changed. Just to be 100% sure, I also took Shakira's Grandes Existos, which has received its first original Platinum in December 2002 for shipment of 200,000, which still had only one Platinum by December 2003, and I compared it with RIAA current 2x Platinum for it, which is another solid evidence that they have updated without changing the certification-date.

I think it's safe to disregard my initial opinion on how RIAA treats Latin type certifications. I apologize for the confusion I've created. I may have sounded quite persistent because RIAA does update the certification-dates for singles and albums even if they represent the same amount shipped. Take Micheal Jackson's single "Rock With You" for example, it was first certified Gold in 1980 for shipment of 1,000,000 units (see older levels), and then it was updated to Platinum with newer certification-level in February 1989, still representing only 1,000,000 units, the certification date is updated also. Or take The Beatles' compilation multi-disc album The Beatles 1967-1970. Prior to September 1996, RIAA used to count multi-disc albums as one unit towards certifications regardless of how many discs there were in the CD-case. In September 1996, RIAA made an amendment, and began counting each unit within a CD-case towards certifications. For example, two units in a CD-case would be counted as two units sold. So after the amendment, the original 7x Platinum for The Beatles 1967-1970 turned into 14x Platinum with the newer rules, still representing the same units shipped, certification-date was changed as well. Well, if I notice any inconsistencies with the way RIAA applies and updates the Latin albums, I'll be sure to bring it up, bur for now we should make the template to ignore the certification-date.--Harout72 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Harout72 for your input, and thank you Muhandes for the quick update on the template. Erick (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And I would like to thank both of you for doing the research. Correcting the template was easy, and we now should have the correct numbers in the several hundred articles using it. I'll do a quick run over the articles and see if there are any leftovers. --Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to copy this discussion to Template talk:Certification Table Entry since I think it should be there for documentation. If you mind, please let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it might clear up any confusion if someone noticed a changed for Latin album released prior 2008. EDIT: Are you going to update the US section? Remove the certyear since it no longer applies to anything and state that Spanish does not require relyear? Erick (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, forgot to do that. --Muhandes (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America

Category:Albums certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Certification Template for Hungary

Hi Muhandes,

I came across the page of Britney (album) which is supported by the certification Templates, it states that the album has gone Gold in Hungary with the level next to it, 3,000 units. The levels for international artists up until the beginning of 2005 were Gold=10,000, Platinum=20,000 (see page 23). It should be noted that during the same period that it was 10,000/20,000 for international artists, it was 15,000/30,000 for domestic artists. And the levels for domestic artists were reduced to 15,000/30,000 on April 23, 2002, meaning the levels for international artists were reduced to 10,000/20,000 on the same exact date. And the levels for international artists for the previous period (December 03, 1997 - April 23, 2002) possibly stood lower from domestic levels also by 5,000/10,000, meaning they were 20,000/40,000. But since we don't have any specific sources for the levels before April 23, 2002, the template should leave it blank, in my opinion.--Harout72 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the resources, I will have a look and correct the template. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had a look, and I think we can indeed set the level to 10,000/20,000 between April 23, 2002 and February 23, 2005. We can also set it to 3000/6000 at least from September 13, 2006 till present since it was so at least from October 2007. As for any time before or in-between, we don't know. Would you say that is correct?--Muhandes (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct, for now we should set the Template so it produces levels for those two periods, 10,000/20,000 for "April 23, 2002 and February 23, 2005" and 3,000/6,000 for "September 13, 2006-onwards". I'll try and look for sources for the other periods. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done and I also went over all uses of the template (only 38 luckily) and corrected the usage. Let me know if you find additional sources.

Would you mind if I copied this discussion to the template talk page? That way other people can understand why changes were made. --Muhandes (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, thanks again for correcting them.--Harout72 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Universities in India

Left comments regarding Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Uttar Pradesh section, regarding Uttarakhand Open University in Distance Education Council section and regarding images in images section at Talk:List of universities in India. Please have a look.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of this page, it is the one I am working on :) Thanks for the note anyway. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of mobile network operators of the Asia Pacific region : THAILAND

Hi Muhandes,

It's about the words "Planning/Testing". The Telecommunication in Thailand is so complicated. "Planning/Testing" doesn't mean it's not up.

Planning means it's up but has limited users and unofficial.

Testing means it's up and every customers can use it and every "Testing" mobile network operators must say " It's the testing, not for commercial" .

It's about and concession's owner and law that can't say "It's official."

--Nexttrue (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it's not official or not commercial, don't list it. Listing it now serves only a promotional purpose. --Muhandes (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Web processing

Web processing has been around for a very long time: it's been used for printing, making self-adhesive paper, magnetic tape, etc. The article as it stood took a very limited view, and presumably was written by someone only familiar with electronics.

I see that you undid my edit concerning web processing. Why?

Popiolek (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree the article takes a very limited view. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Here's an exercise. Pick a random thousand articles in Wikipedia. Did you find many that start with "The meaning of X includes Y and Z but we deal only with Z"? Did you find many that have in the first sentence "This article does not deal with X as it should"? That's not how an article starts. The first sentence of the current article is very clear about what the article deals with. The meaning of the word is a matter to a dictionary. If you want to extend the article, not just saying it lacks material, there are two options. The first is to add material to the article itself. Don't say in the lead "this does not deal with X as it should", add X to the article body (don't forget to always cite reliable sources). You can then change the lead accordingly. The second option, in case the two issues are separate, is to create another article and use some disambiguation tool, most probably a hatnote. I hope this helps, and I'd be happy to assist with any more questions. --Muhandes (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no point trying to shelter behind 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary'. Whatever Wikipedia is and isn't, there is no excuse for making an incorrect statement. The following sentence: "Roll-to-roll processing, also known as web processing, reel-to-reel processing or R2R, is the process of creating electronic devices on a roll of flexible plastic or metal foil."

is not taking a limited view, it's plain, flat out, wrong. It does not have a supporting reference, and if you google on these words you will find plenty of companies offering equipment which not only is not for electronics industry but clearly predates it by many decades.

So, if you are asserting that there are thousands of other articles on Wikipedia which make similar incorrect statements, then I suggest that you spend your time fixing some of these instead of trying to prevent me correct a glaring error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popiolek (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. I have no problem with correcting the statement. We just don't do it by saying "This article is NOT about X". We do it by saying what it is about. Your method of correcting the article is unencyclopedic. I'll try to fix it, but since I don't know anything about the material, you better correct my text. --Muhandes (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

TIGAON

[1] The reference you needed for this edit is a news report published by a U.S. based Filipino newspaper, The Filipino Reporter, Year 30 No. 34 National Edition NYC/August 9-15, 2002, Tel: 212-967-5784.http://www.filipinoreporter.us/

Notability is suppoerted by the article. Any successful descendant of Don Andres Garchitorena is notable.

Muhandes, I guess we just have to give up and not belabor the point. Your standard is too high for readers (and maybe fans?) who have to decide for themselves what is relevant, interesting and substantial. Tigaon is a very small town and whatever little information you can add might be interesting but of course it does not have to be so when you adhere to your very very high standard which by the way, when I look at the big picture in some of your articles, they are full of petty non news worthy information.

Good luck to you and your Encyclopedia. I suggest from now on to just cover the British Aristocracy since it fits more the standard you have just recently set.

173.63.190.188 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These are not my standards, they are Wikipedia's. I did not "set them recently", they are set by editors over the year by means of consensus. I'm sorry that you don't like them, but that's how Wikipedia works, and perhaps it really isn't for everyone. I'm not sure what newsworthiness or the British aristocracy have to do with notability, but your tone of words suggests you are not really interested in understanding. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce

Hi. I just want to tell you that the charts section was formatted that way a long time back because the article is too long and it already exceeds 100Kbs. It was done to to reduce the number of Kbs. So many senior editors visited this page and helped me when i was re-constructing the article, no one ever imposed then. Jivesh • Talk2Me

OK, makes sense and falls under WP:IAR. I just wonder why editors keep reverting without explaining the reason. It would saved us all ten seconds which we could spend... OK, we would probably spend them doing something just as unimportant. But still. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your comprehension. Regards. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Raj Reddy page

Hi Muhandes,

I've seen that you have removed the image of Raj Reddy. What is the reason for removing it? Should we add some other photograph?

Praveen Garimella (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It was an error. I reverted an inappropriate edit and did not notice it also added the image. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Praveen Garimella (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peppino D'Agostino's Wiki Page

Dear Muhandes,

I am hoping you can help me to better understand what has happened to my clients Wiki page. I noticed you were active in editing Peppino's page in the history tab so I thought I would contact you for direction.

At one point I had a nice description of Peppino on his Wiki page along with his discography and a full set of his official links (I just added the links again today) and a picture. Now it is very bare with almost nothing that I had originally placed remaining.

His page is also noted as a "stub". Again, that was not my original posting and I don't know how it got changed around so dramatically. I'd like to build it back out with Peppino's official information. I am not a person that fully understands how to post/use Wiki, but as Peppino's personal manager worldwide, I need to assure that the current and correct information is presented on his Wiki site and that it is represented clearly and concisely.

Again, any help you could provide me in getting his wiki page set up is greatly appreciated.

Best Regards, Brad Stewart Dynamic Artists Management, LLC Personal Manager and agent for Peppino D'Agostino http://www.dynamicartists.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfkatana (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As Peppino's manager, you should not edit his page at all due to your conflict of interest. I'm going to leave you a comment in your own talk page with some guidelines to read about it.

As for the external links, they are against Wikipedia's external links policy, so I had to remove them. I'm not sure about the rest of the material, I will check it when I have the time, I am now on a vacation with limited (and costly) Internet access. --Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the page's history and I can't find any version which includes more information. this is the version from your last edit on September 2010 and this is the one from your edit before that on August 2008. As you can see they are both very similar to the current one (minus the links of course). --Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Muhandes. Thank you for your time on Peppino's Wiki page. There use to be more information. I have no idea what happened to it and can't explain why the history does not reflect it. I am a laymen when it comes to working with Wikipedia. That's one reason I am slightly confused about what can be posted. For example, the external links, some I understand as not being allowed and why, such as the links to other guitarists, but all the MySpace and YouTube links were official links that are controlled by Peppino. It is my understanding that those links are allowed and I see them on many other artists pages such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Girls#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_emmanuel#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny#External_links These external sites have a number of "more information" type links, but also have other official sites such as MySpace, etc., etc. Why were Peppino's MySpace and other official external sites removed?

I'd also like to have a link to imdb.com as Peppino has a page there too. Many others have that as well.

The write up that was pulled from Peppino's page was noted as being a copyrighted work by someone else, namely Favored Nations, when in reality, Peppino owns the copyright and we gave Favored Nations the right to use it. This also supports that there was more information posted at one time, because of the fact that it was pulled due to an erroneous concern of copyright. I just really want to get his Wiki page filled out more so that it better represents his body of work and history of his career, but I am fearful that anything I might put up will be taken down.

Thank you again for your time.

Sfkatana (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sfkatana.

In general, the existence of other pages which do not follow policy and guidelines is not an acceptable argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFF if you are interested in knowing why. WP:ELNO #10 explicitly forbids "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." I may remove these from the pages you indicated, or you may do so yourself, stating WP:ELNO #10 as the reason. An IMDB link is acceptable, I added that.

What you say about copyright may well be the case, but Wikipedia can't use copyrighted material without permission. You should read about requesting copyright permission to understand what such a permission will require, and Peppino (or whomever is the real owner) can use the standard Declaration of consent. I recommend to add an explanation as to why another entity (Favored Nations) claims copyright. You are correct in assuming that what appears to be copyrighted material can be removed in such a way as to remove no trace - it is policy to do so.

You are also right in assuming anything you might put up (except minor edits) will most likely be taken down. As you have a very clear conflict of interest you should not edit the page except for minor edits. Instead, make suggestions at the article's talk page, and another editor will review and edit. I have the page on my watchlist so it would probably (but not necessarily) be me.

I hope this helps you. --Muhandes (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GCS Lahore

I have given the references from the offical website of Government College of Science, Wahdat Road Lahore about the history, programs the sports and co-curricular activities then why have you removed it?--Board Topper (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the version of the article as you left it on August 5th. Where exactly are the sources? I noticed that you added sources now, which is nice, although the website seems to be down at the moment. I corrected some Manual of Style violations and removed some material which the guideline discourages, and left you a note on your talk page with the relevant guidelines. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The website is not down. U can see the website and the programs are listed on the website but I don't know why have you removed them?--Board Topper (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was very clear on the edit summary, why don't you read it before querying me over and over again? Here is the exact edit summary: per WP:UNIGUIDE "do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section." Read that guideline, it is all there. --Muhandes (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Institute of Career Development

Your PROD at Institute of Career Development has been removed. You may wish to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it qualify for G5? --Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the article history. It was in fact created by User:Board Topper on August 7, and not as the history suggests. See logs--Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realized, you mistakenly restored 28 revisions which were from both versions. Or was this on purpose? --Muhandes (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about mistakenly restoring the old revisions, so I have re-deleted them. However, it does not qualify for G5 because the user was not blocked or banned when the article was deleted: the block came a little over three hours after the creation of the article. That, in fact, was why I reverted my own G5 deletion. I'm afraid if you want it deleted it will have to be AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought G5 was exactly for such cases. The creator of the article is User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal, using the User:Board Topper as a sock. User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal was blocked at the time. Otherwise, how can a blocked user create an article? I am not trying to say you are wrong, I am just trying to understand what G5 means. Secondly, the PROD was removed because there was already one PROD. But that was wrong, there was no previous PROD, just a mistaken history. Wouldn't this qualify for restoring at least the PROD? --Muhandes (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have managed to make several mistakes on this one case. Perhaps I'm tired. I saw that the current indefinite block on User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal dated from 14:32, 7 August 2011, but I failed to notice that there was already a 1 week block in force before then. I have deleted the article under CSD G5: you were perfectly right. The PROD, however, is more complicated. A previous version of the article had been deleted following a PROD, and if a new editor had created a new version of the article it could be taken as in effect contesting the PROD after the event, in which case it could not be PRODDED again. There is room for argument about whether it is a different article which just happens to have the same name, so that it can be PRODDED, but there is enough of a case for saying that it can't to make me reluctant to delete an article in that situation unless it seems to me to be a really clear-cut case of a very different article with the same title. However, none of that matters in this case, as the G5 speedy deletion applies. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks a lot ... from WikiProject Education in India naveenpf (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction

I have merged Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction to the author. Since the author has an article and is notable, there is no reason to lose the information of his book. I merged with the book section of his article. If merging can be done, it should be done. Joe Chill (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The material was taken verbatim from here, so it might be a copyright violation to use it in this form. But do as you wish. --Muhandes (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be simple to rephrase so that it isn't a copyvio or plagiarism. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"The customs of Christianity have changed through a series of obstacles into what they are now. Miraza Tahir Ahmad chose to write about the current Christian beliefs by examining them through logic and reason. A variety of Christian beliefs are discussed in this book." Good enough? Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is redundant, but I don't really mind. My entire point was that a merge in this case would not be appropriate since there was no valid material in the article to merge. --Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I edited the sentence for conciseness. Feel free to revert/edit if you think I lost any of the meaning. --Muhandes (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Island lighthouse

Hi,

I made a change to the article about the Mona Island Lighthouse and you reverted it, so here's my explanation, hoping that you'll update the information. Unfortunately, I don't know Wikipedia well enough to add the references myself.

During research for a publication on the lighthouses of Puerto Rico, I stumbled on the claim that the tower of the Mona Island Lighthouse was designed by Gustave Eiffel. Further research on the subject led to the publication of a paper earlier this year. The two references that you cite supporting the Eiffel claim are repeating the myth, whose origin we've not been able to determine so far.

Cordially,

José A. Mari Mutt Professor University of Puerto Rico ay Mayagüez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamarimutt (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit since you did not provide a source, and as you now provided the source I reinstated the material. I think the cause of refuting the myth is better served by mentioning it and saying it is wrong, than by ignoring it. That way we can be sure other editors who see the two facts can see which one is better supported by evidence for themselves. Can you supply the volume/issue for that publication? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding the Mona Island Lighthouse, the name of the journal is Lighthouse Digest and the issue is January/February 2011. I first wrote on the subject in my blog, the article with Sandra Shanklin came later. My blog entry is in Spanish bot you can look at it and do a Google Translate if you wish.

Thanks,

José — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamarimutt (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, that's what I used anyway. I thought they might be using the volume/issue format as well, but month/year will suffice. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)