Veerendra.dhupkar

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shanta Shelke, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shanta Shelke was changed by Veerendra.dhupkar (u) (t) blanking the page on 2010-09-29T06:06:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

The Hindu is reliable. The fact that it is a review does not change much simply because we use quatations and do not cite it as a proof to a statement. Boxofficeindia is also a credible source. Youtube is unallowed because of copyright matters, and the other source you cited is also unreliable.

Also please read WP:EW - it will help you understand matters more clearly. Please use the talk page before making further additions. The problem with your text is also the fact that you are using lists and it is not a proper way of writing.

If you want to know more about the reliability of sources and what is and is not acceptable on WP, please read WP:RS.

Thanks for understanding. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE also says "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations."

musicalnirvana is not a reliable source. If you think it is, then the burden of evidence is on you. Upperstall is more acceptable simply because I took part in a discussion regarding its reliability and the verdict was to accept it (the same case with boxofficeindia.com).

I think any additional information to the article of Asha Bhosle would be really meaningful and essential, but as I said, let's discuss it on the talk page. You can copy your text into a new section on the article's talk page so that we can rewrite it together. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a reason to ignore some of your questions - the first quote in my previous message says it all, and the fact that there's a mistake on the article does not mean it has to be repeated. You can remove it if you want. I see no reason why anybody would ignore the discussion of adding essential info to the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)