Talk:K. G. Suresh

Removal of YouTube links

YouTube can be an acceptable source in limited case, but in many cases it is a copyright violation. I saw several YouTube entries; I checked the first two and did not see any indication that they were acceptable, so I removed all. Do not re-add unless you can provide evidence that they are properly licensed.
It's fine that you have deleted few of the YouTube links, I will make sure to add links more reliable to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.70.87 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very partial cleanup

I cleaned out some of the more egregious peacock terms, and some of the improper links, but this still has a long way to go to be acceptable, so I haven't removed any of the cleanup tags. Hope someone else can work on making it acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 14:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags

It would be nice is we had a process for removing the maintenance tags on this article. My thoughts are as follows:

• Peacock terms - I went through and removed the ones that jumped out at me. I'd be happy if one other editor (not 122.160.70.87), reviewed, and removed any, if any remain and then edit and remove the peacock part of the notice.
• Wikified - a number of terms are wikilinked, some could be but are not. I realize this term covers more than wikilinks, but I don't see any other egregious issues, such as the use of HTML where wiki-markup would be preferred. Here, if one other editor glanced through the article, and determined that it is adequately (if not perfectly) wikilinked, I think that part of the notice can be removed.
• COI - it clearly has been edit by a person with a COI, so in theory this can never be removed. In a practical sense, if a number of independent editors review the article and feel it is OK, it should be OK to remove the notice. I don't have a strong opinion on how to monitor this.
• Autobiography - same issues apply, it requires the passage of time, and the review by independent editors to ensure that the concerns are minimal enough to remove the template. If someone has specific ideas on how to manage this, propose away.--SPhilbrickT 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The same IP has returned and added some new content but I still don't feel this warrants removal of the maintenance templates yet so I have restored them. CaptRik (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as my suggestion is that every part of the content is upto the mark. So the maintainace tag should be removed, as the tag on above gives a negative impact on the reputation of the concerned person. Devdutt Chakravarty (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I highly doubt the party or the person is going to say, "hey, there is a maintenance tag in the article about me." They're either not going to care, or won't even notice. Either way, until those specific issues are addressed, which aren't currently, it will stay. These tags aren't put here to tarnish anyone's reputation or put people off the article, but encourage them to fix the issues. That's all. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I do totally accept that the party isn't going to say about the existence of maintenance tag. But the most important is that the article contains all the verified facts about the party. I am closely studying the party and updating all the facts, which sometimes requires few peacock terms to describe. If you find any other way of describing, then do help out the article for its beautification. And most important is that the much authenticated links are placed to claim about the authenticity. Rest in grandfather's case no proof can be provided as during that period no such record maintenance was done. But as you say that the tag is not meant to tarnish the image of the party, but I find it the vice-versa. As mentioned in the tag is that- this article needs to be wikified to meet quality standards and it represents an autobiography instead of encyclopedia, I do find that obligatory. So, please don't object upon the contents as they are very much to the true value of the party's existence, but still if you are not satisfied with the talks, then please help out making the article a quality article but not my removing the facts mentioned in the article. 59.180.193.95 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, Maintenence tag will stay until it has been fully addressed. If you continue removing it, I will gladly report you to ANI. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing material about grandfather and great grandfather

The material about the grandfather and great grandfather of the subject was interesting, but had problems. It included peacock language, but more importantly, it was not properly sourced, which is critical in a BLP. While there was an apparent source included it was a link to a blog, which is not acceptable for BLP claims (with some technical exceptions, not applicable here). --SPhilbrickT 12:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Peacock issue

I had earlier worked on removing some of the peacock phrasing, but did not remove the maintenance template at that time, partly because I worried I was only cleaning out the most egregious, and I might find it still problematic later. I think the other problems still exist, but the peacock issue is now under control, so I modified the template.--SPhilbrickT 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)