User talk:Akerans

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sakhr

All material on that article was used with permission from the owner of the company. They are contacting the wikipedia admins. Please give it some time. :)

Debolina Sengupta 21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debolina Sengupta (talk • contribs)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Thank you- Paula Cole Ithaca

Thank you for correcting my referencing on this page. I was online trying to work out how to reference things properly when you did it for me. Thanks a lot. Do you know how to add images? I haven't mastered that yet and would love to get the album art up for this album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenvenom (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome for the assistance. Regarding images, that's one of my weak areas. I'm not fully aware of the obtaining and uploading process, but you can read more about that at Wikipedia:Images. Hope that link is of some use to you. Akerans (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Payal Rohatgi

Reply to your message on Rohatgi.

Read your reply and reread it again and again. I have posted reliable sources that show box-office collections and release dates of her B-grade sleazy films. In case you want to continue, then maybe a media article in the papers will show how her PR team is trying to falsify facts about her life and her work. Now, this is a PROPER warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello5678 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Picture Removal

Hi Akerans,

I removed three pictures of H.H. K'ung that were on his page. There were 4 pictures, one portrait of H.H. K'ung and three others all of which contained Adolph Hitler. H.H. K'ung was the Premier of China and held other posts such as the Head of the Central Bank and Minister of Finance. Just because he met with Hitler one time prior to World War II doesn't mean that he should be portrayed with Hitler in 75% of his pictures on Wikipedia. It's silly and misrepresents him. Why do you keep reversing it? Do I need to post some pictures of him with Churchil and Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-Chek? And if I wanted to do so, how would I do that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekung (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the material (or kept reversing the removal) because there was no reason in the edit summary for its removal, and I could not see a valid reason for its removal. Having read your reason, I don't think your reason is valid. Wikipedia is not censored, and no one has written any claims about these pictures to misrepresent the subject. If you wish to add your own images, then you can read more about that at Wikipedia:Images. Hope that link is of some use to you. Akerans (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh...

That would apply to the project page itself. So your point would be? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We agreed to mediation, and discussing the situation outside of mediation would defeat the purpose of mediation. Akerans (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (Updated with signature - posted initially on my iTouch - 10/15/2010)

I knew what I was doing :)))))))))))

Hello, Akerans. You have new messages at Mariah-Yulia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

help reverting and saving friends page

I, in error, tried to add/.alter a friend's page but changed my mind and tagged what I thought was my addition but I tagged his whole article because I did not know what I was doing I thought I was tagging any changes I made to be deleted. I messed up and will not try add to wikipedia again but would feel bad if he lost his page due to my error. Please revert to copy of article after my edits/tags. I did them at work so my ip address was not the same as my home IP. Can you revert to earlier version? Help I am so sorry Fixer789 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in your history besides editing my page, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. What page are you talking about? Akerans (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I altered /Andrew james dubats earlier today and I did not even know I had to make a user account before I did it. I made this account after reading a bit but realised I am over my head and did not know how to fix my errors.Fixer789 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

help

I altered "Andrew james dubats" earlier today and I did not even know I had to make a user account before I did it. I thought I fixed it by tagging my keystrokes for deletion but instead tagged his page for deletion,( because I was at work and rushed and am an idiot)I made this account after reading a bit but realised I am over my head and did not know how to fix my errors. I do not want him to lose his page over my mistakes. Can his page be reverted to before my messing around? Fixer789 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking through the article history, and feel that the current version of the article is the best way to display the information about the subject. However, the article is currently flagged for speedy deletion, and I'm assuming that is that part which is most troubling to you? Unfortunately, I disagree with removing the speedy deletion because the subject does not appear to be notable and does not merit his/her own article. An administrator will review the article and accept/decline the request. However, if I've incorrectly assumed the speedy deletion tag was the problem, can you be more specific as to what information should be changed? Akerans (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I now believe after reading your requirements think that he very well may meet the citeria for a low profile subject due to his interviews with music artists for Specs Howard. I feel very bad that my block deletion may be the reason for any problems with his page. I hope this is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixer789 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, your edits are not a problem. If you feel the subject does meet the requirements for a page, then edit the page and add the {{hangon}} tag. Then, state your reasoning on the articles talk page why you feel the page should not be deleted. Akerans (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixer789 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Srirangam99 - help needed on the article 'Kulothunga Chola III'

Thanks for your proper formatting of that page. I am contributing info on that page with reliable sources. But I am very poor in editing, Sir. After placing text and saving the page I noticed that despite repeated efforts, the words Kulothunga Chola III have come in bold at four or five places. I cannot seem to correct the problem. Shall be grateful for your help and guidance.

Also in case you read that page you will find some paras repeating. This is to inform you that my edit of that page is not yet over. Some overview was added by me long time back, now I have books with me while editing. Broadly those repeats are original texts which have to be appropriately paraphrased quoting sources of info. I have also arrange those texts chronologically. As I proceed with the work, I will keep deleting the unwanted/unnecessary material. Till that time, let that (useless) text remain please, for it will help me with editing the page. Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kulothunga Chola III was in bold because the article was linking to itself. The fix for that problem is removing the brackets from [[Kulothunga Chola III]]. Don't worry about the text, I did not plan on changing that. Akerans (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh Sir, does it mean that nowhere in the article can we have (not every time his name is mentioned) when required, name of the person i.e. Kulo III appearing in blue? No probs, I will reconcile.

Srirangam99 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, his name won't appear blue. Only links to other articles will appear blue. Akerans (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir greetings from Srirangam99 once again. Thanks for your invaluable help and suggestions on Kulothunga Chola III. I have just finished editing this article (up to the death of Kulothunga III's death in 1218 AD) i.e. up to the third last para (full) titled 'Loss to Pandyas and decline of the Cholas'. Can you kindly go through the article up to that para and see if it reads coherently and is in order? I shall be grateful for your comments and suggestions. (I will finalize the balance part regarding religion, architecture and society in Kulo III's time in the coming days). Looking forward to your guidance. Thanks. (Another question: can this article be evaluated for quality standards within Wiki? In case you are one who is capable of doing that, nothing will be better than that, otherwise, pls. ask the appropriate person to review this article without mincing words. I have already identified a small (or major) weakness in my editing. While drawing from sources, the list seems to have become a bit long... how can that be managed? Will be grateful for your reply and further guidance. Thanks in advance. Srirangam99 (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The article reads good, although there are some issues. The article is missing a lead paragraph, and there is some point of view present in some areas. For example, phrases like "The reign of Kulothunga Chola III is a remarkable example of..." should be avoided. Rather, say, "The reign of Kulothunga Chola III is an example of..." In other words, don't make things sound better or worse. Let the reader decide that for themselves. Also, Looks like you used 3 (maybe 4) reference materials? I listed the third in the reference section, and if you could complete the details (publisher and location) that would help. Also, add the ISBN to the reference material as well. That helps readers identify the source material. There were also two dates used for A History of South India. 2002 and 2003. Were you using two different versions of this book, or was using the 2003 date an error? My review is incomplete, however, and if you'd like a more thorough review of the article I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Peer review and following the steps there. Regarding the references, I took care of that and condensed the section. Akerans (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for your invaluable suggestions. First things first. It was indeed an error on my part. History of India by K.A.N.Sastri with me is only one book and the edition is of 2003. 2002 was a repeated typo error by me. Sorry for that, but I will immediately correct it also. Yes, I will add the publisher name and ISBN numbers as you said. Though I hate to say, ok, I agree that your review is incomplete, but that is MORE because as I pointed out the article (thus far) is itself incomplete. Like I said (mainly because Kulo III built the 4th great Chola temple at Tribhuvananam (Sarabeswara)) it deserves sections like Religion, Architecture and Society, which haven't yet been started properly. May be after these three sections get contributed then may be a review will be complete, if not thorough. I completely agree that my choice of words (being very inexperienced) may not have been appropriate. So, as I requested earlier, critic or suggestions and even CHANGES may be made by people like you by adequately re-phrasing those sentences, so the end-article shapes up appropriately under the guidance of experts and experienced Wikipedians. I for one, drew the lines 'the reign of Kulo III is a remarkable..." from here: (I was wrong only, no questions)

Book Name: "A History of South India", K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, (2002)(Oxford University Press), page: 178 ISBN no. 0 19 560 686 8

"Rajadhiraja II's successor was Kulottunga III whose exact relationship to the main line is not clear. He began his reign in July 1178, though Rajadhiraja lived up to 1182. By his personal ability, Kulottunga delayed the disruption of Chola empire for about a generation and his reign marks the last great epoch in the history of Chola architecture and art as he himself is the last of the great Chola monarchs." (Sir, for the sake of consistency, I have used the spelling as Kulothunga Chola III in the article, mainly because other Kulo I and Kulo II article list the spelling as Kulothunga).

If it is ok, with the above lines itself I will create the lead paragraph. I will wait for your reply. If possible Sir, could you reply on my talk page (so I get to know when you have replied to me) if not inconvenient to you?? Srirangam99 (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir sorry to bother you again.. I have suitably re-phrased the 'remarkable' sentence. Further, I am very sensitive and indeed will always be, towards contribution of POV material knowingly and unknowingly by me. You mentioned that at some places there are problems. Could you please point out the specific examples? Rest assured, it will be my endeavour to correct the wrongs at once Sir. I shall also discuss with you and take your guidance (which you are indeed giving), so as to better the quality of the article. I have also placed the publisher name and ISBN numbers. Do reply Sir. Srirangam99 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing Kulothunga Chola III

Sir, thanks for your immense help in taking your time out to review and appropriate re-paraphrase sections of the article. Naturally, the (edited portion) of the article (yet incomplete) reads far, far better now. You also left a note on my talk page and left a few remarks and suggestions. With your permission, I will refer to those points and leave the final decision on only one or two points with you. I think majority of edits made by you have contributed to the article quality being better and there are absolutely no issues as far as I am concerned. The point was this (with reference to your re-paraphrasing):

Sir, you re-phrased text in the following manner:

(1) Kulothunga Chola III was the ruler of the Chola empire from 1178 to 1218 AD, after succeeding Rajadhiraja Chola II.

Reply: Sir, the original sentence placed by me was: "Kulothunga Chola III ruled the Chola empire from 1178 to 1218 AD after succeeding Rajadhiraja Chola II, who though lived up to 1182 AD."

Sir, the above text was actually borrowed almost verbatim and placed from the following text: 'A History of South India', K.A.N.Sastry, (2003), page 178 (first para):

"Rajadhiraja II's successor was Kulothunga III ................... He began his reign in July 1178, though Rajadhiraja lived up to 1182."

I may explain here Sir, that the context of the two years being mentioned (i.e. 1178 - accession of Kulo III) and 1182 AD (the year up to which Rajadhiraja II lived) in the above line is to clearly inform the reader that Kulo III's reign began in 1178 AD while his predecessor Rajadhiraja II, who was alive till 1182 (and made way for Kulo III - [at least] four years before his own death). In view of this Sir, would retaining the original text (in bold above) be correct in your view?? I would do so only after you concur.

Your second re-phrasing was:

(2)"However, during the last two years of his reign, a Pandyas resurgent resulted in a decline of the Cholas and ultimately their demise by 1280 AD.

Could the above be re-phrased (in view of a small grammatical error) as: "However, during the last two years of his reign, a Pandya resurgence resulted in a decline of the Cholas and ultimately their demise by 1280 AD." Sir, in the alternative, the same can even be rephrased as: "However, during the last two years of his reign, the resurgent Pandyas caused the decline of the Cholas and ultimately their demise by 1280 AD." Your comments and permission are requested on this.

(3) Sir, this point needs your detailed consideration (again only in view of the context behind the phrasing). The text originally placed by me was:

"" 'The tireless Parakramabahu of Sri Lanka, known as Ilangai in Tamil, renewed his efforts against the Cholas and even persuaded Pandya Emperor Vira Pandya to make common cause with him, and the ruler of Venad also probably joined the combination. A certain Vikrama Pandya, perhaps some relation of Kulasekhara Pandya who must have died in the interval, sought the help of Kulothunga Chola III against Vira Pandya. There followed an invasion of the Pandyan kingdom by Kulothunga Chola III as a result of which the Pandya and Sinhala forces were defeated in battle, Vira Pandya being driven into exile and Vikrama Pandya installed on the throne of Madurai. This campaign must have ended before 1182. From his exile, with the aid of his allies, Vira Pandya made another effort to retrieve his fortune, but the attempt was crushed by Kulothunga Chola III on the battlefield of Nettur. It is not certain as to whether Nettur is the same place near Thalassery in modern Kerala or located in the Tamil country. Thence, Vira Pandya fled to Ceylon'. ""

Sir, the above text (except the last sentence on the location of Nettur being near Thalassery): was taken verbatim from the above book by K.A.N.Sastry (page 178). Here, your comment on what is certain rather than what is probable is absolutely correct. But Sir, I only used and placed the original text where the phrase 'probably' was used by the author, who said "........ and the ruler of Venad also probably joined the combination"".

Please see also the first sentence, where the phrase 'The tireless Parakramabahu' was also used by the author K.A.N.Sastri only, with the whole para being placed by me word by word.

Sir, description of the said episode also ends with the author writing thus: "The success in this war culminated in there being "no further fighting as both the ruler of Venad and Vira Pandya made up their minds to submit to Kulothunga Chola III and offered their obeisance to him (Kulo III) in his open durbar at Madura."

Sir, could both references to the (Chera) King of Venad be retained as given in the book (including or excluding the original phrase probably?? Will wait for your concurrence. Thank you. Srirangam99 (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Another point Sir, The third book quoted in the article 'The Colas' by K.A.N.Sastri, as known to me is indeed a book with an ISBN. It is indeed available or can be seen at books.google.com/. But I would like to mention that this book is not with me nor have I placed any text or material from this book, this was probably done by the original initiators of this page. My sources, were of course, three, (two books by K.A.N.Sastri) Advanced History of India and A History of South India. Plus for inscriptional evidence, I accessed www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions/ (various volumes). Srirangam99 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

LEPC

Hi Akerans, Thanks for the assist on the references on Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church page. That's much better.HIS2008 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [1] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ed Cunningham

It is noted that you altered the Ed Cunningham article on 3 November 2010 because of "This section needs to be rewritten without making claims from primary sources (i.e. youtube videos) and remarks from self published sources (i.e. my.journalstar.com).)" As per Wikipedia policy (shortcut WP:NEWSBLOG), newspaper blogs (huskerextra.com and journalstar.com are controlled by and owned by the Lincoln Journal-Star, which is the primary newspaper for Lincoln, NE) "are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." References 2 and 3 are factual articles. Reference 5 states specifically that the opinion stated is indeed an opinion. As per Wikipedia rules, the journalist's name is included. Furthermore, huskerextra.com and the journalstar.com are secondary sources ("second hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them").

Also, a Youtube video that is taken directly from television (references 1 and 4) may not fit within the category of a primary source. Per Wikipedia, "primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political discussion, and so on." (see Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS). In these cases, the Youtube videos are the actual events - not accounts written (or even talked about) by people who are directly involved, etc. Per Wikipedia, "primary sources are permitted if used carefully," and "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source...." These particular Youtube videos do not contain any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" about the issue. Any claims, analyses, etc. contained in the Youtube videos ARE the issue. A similar example to this might be an article about State of the Union addresses that contains links to Youtube where the addresses have been posted without any extraneous commentary.

At most, the final sentence of the "Commentary Controversy" may arguably not fit within the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, but everything prior is permissible. If you have any suggestions on how to best phrase this, I would welcome your suggestions. Otherwise, I will look at ways to modify it so as to coincide with Wikipedia regulations (like the previous sentences). I would appreciate it if all prior sentences were not removed (although if there are better ways to word sentences, that could be beneficial), particularly as they fall within Wikipedia rules and regulations, as well as because they provide valuable information regarding a particular article on Wikipedia.

I used information at the following links on making the above assertions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Rouxinol (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding on the article's talk page. Akerans (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tallback

Hello, Akerans. You have new messages at 82.135.29.209's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Everyone, take a deep breath

Look at this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed link The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Akerans

Thank you very much for the tips....appreciate it much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srizvi82 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Liz Jones

Hello - just wondering why you removed mention of the sale of her house on the grounds that it was unsourced despite 1) a source being provided and 2) she's stated in many articles that she finds the upkeep too expensive.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread that section. I thought she was making a claim about market conditions, not the upkeep costs of her home. Feel free to reinsert that material, or I can revert myself if you prefer. Akerans (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted myself. Thanks for bring that to my attention. Akerans (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Hi Akerans, regarding your revert [2], you may have not seen that none of my changes were in any sections the mediation and also my mediation statement is about. (If you want I can also clarify my mediation statement that it is only about the crowd section and lead regarding the crowd size.) Note that the article is not protected exactly for the reason that changes to other sections are valid. Do you have any issues with the content of my changes? If not I would put them in back. Thank you! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally#Recent_changes_by_Arzel_and_Akerans, so please respond there. Thank you! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Akerans, please note that it is not acceptable that you just delete a paragraph without giving any reason about what is wrong with the text. If you continue with such disruptive behavior, then there is no alternative to escalate and report this behavior to admins. I suggest that instead of just removing things you don't like it's a better idea to contribute constructively by adding information and improving existing information. I am of course open for any discussion and improvements of my contributions, but please use a constructive approach. Thank you! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, feel free to escalate. I'll demonstrate that I engaged in conversation while you continued to revert to your preferred version, despite the fact discussion had not reached a consensus. I suggest reverting yourself, given you have been warned about edit warring before. Akerans (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, not correct, you didn't engage in any conversation about the issue, but reverted my various changes again and again just saying it belongs to the mediation. But I notice that you didn't revert my last change, obviously trying to avoid an edit war, which I appreciate. (Well, then Arzel reverted it, but at least he gave a reason why he rejects the content, which I strongly disagree with, but I'm assuming good faith). Ok, so all in all, I think we all agree that we don't agree, and it seems to be very important to you to include it to the mediation, so let's do that, see my note on the mediation page. I'm don't know why you didn't do that in the first place, but this approach is definitely better than engaging an edit war. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The order of events, and/or actions of other users, you've noted is incorrect. I suggest reviewing the article's page history and the talk page, because you appear to have me confused with someone else. Akerans (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, while it would be really fun to now engage a deep discussion on who did what and throw history and diffs against each other, I leave it to the historians to write books about our conversations ;-). But seriously, I really appreciate that you wanted to avoid an edit war, putting it into the mediation is absolutely fine, and I'm optimistic we'll resolve the issue constructively. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course this never will happen, but it would be really a pleasure to meet you in person. You seem to be a very interesting person you can have controversial but fruitful discussion with where you can go away from with more than before. God bless you! (I don't mean this ironically, but really seriously.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance

When you haver a moment if you could look at my discussion page. Another editor is threatning me when I asked not to revert my edit without discussion. He also is wrong about consenus. A dicey topic as it is claimed by many people to stop discussion. thanks Basil rock (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First, don't let a more experienced editor intimidate you with the accusations on your talk page. You're not the first editor that person has claimed to be a sock puppet, so I would suggest ignoring that claim. Second, I see that you have opened a discussion on the articles talk page. That's good. But, if you wish to introduce new material as such (i.e. that they are not an watchdog group, but rather an attack group), then you need to provide reliable sourcing for such a claim. If you can provide sourcing, then other editors will be more receptive to the change you are proposing. In other words, doesn't matter if you're right, or speak the truth, what matters is if readers can verify that the information you're proposing has been published by reliable sources. Akerans (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Culbann C.P.C

This article i created was deleted back in the summer, as I was away from wikipedia for a long time I did not notice this happening. Yes it is fair that there is no notable online resources that covered the previous event. I will rectify this in getting resources saved for the one in 2011. But to re-instate the article is the evidence I will provide at the end of this comment suffice? It is a "draft" calendar for 2011 DTL clay shooting in the UK for championships, drafted by the UK governing body Clay Pigeon Shooting Association It clearly shows the location for the event in 2011 at Culbann C.P.C.

http://www.cpsa.co.uk/userfiles/file/Calendar2011.pdf

Thanks for any help. --Weeman com (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the issue with that page was that it only used sources from the event; which didn't make the subject notable. If we use more references from the 2011 event, then the subject would still not be notable. The club should be covered by reliable sources, such as newspapers (online or print), to help establish notability. Akerans (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But surely a confirmation from the olympic committee about locations, events etc make them subjects notable. so why not a confirmation from the CPSA about the location of the 2011 event when they are the governing body who organise these events?

Weeman com (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)