Talk:Jan Satyagraha 2012

Warning[edit]

Hello,

You added a warning on this article, but you did not specify what are the issues on the talk page. Unless you do so shortly, I will remove the warning. Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC) No explanation given, so template removed. If there is any issue, please explain them here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the unaddressed maintenance template for notability, but support the removal of the POV tag and added others. (You may wish to contact the editor for clarification on the identified POV issue.) When you see maintenance templates on articles (they're not actually warnings), the information provided in the template is generally sufficient explanation of the issues. Further rationale on the article talk page is not required. That said, removal of unaddressed maintenance tags is considered disruptive. If you have questions regarding the issues flagged, please directly contact the specific editor that placed the tags for clarification, rather than removing the tags. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 22:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this has been in all major media in India, and many others in the West. See The Washington Post. I hope it is sufficiently recommandable. ;o) Yann (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further I contacted the editor who did not answer after one week. A template without further information is useless. Further rationale on the article talk page IS required. Where are references needed? Yann (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that this event has been in all major media in India, but fail to provide the details with which to support notability. You can find a link to the process for establishing notability for events in the maintenance template. A review of the general notability guidelines should also serve beneficial. I removed the POV template, since it is a subjective criteria and was not clearly defined. Note that while you may have requested further information from the editor that placed the template, that editor has not yet been back on Wikipedia. We do not have deadlines here. I would recommend placing a comment on the editor's talk page and letting him know that you removed the template due to a failure to indicate the perceived lack of neutrality. Invite him to contact you directly if he still has concerns once he returns. Overall, maintenance templates do not require further rationale, but in fact provide links to the applicable policies and guidelines which address the identified issue/s in greater detail. To this end, for example, you can actually click through the link to information that will provide a background and greater understanding of self-published and primary sources, which cannot be used to establish notability. At this point, the two external links are inappropriate, one citation is self-published and needs to be removed, and another citation is primary, which again cannot be used to establish notability. This leaves the article with one citation, which, in part, violates copyright. (dupe link) Not good. Cindy(talk to me) 05:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Satyagraha 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]