Talk:Swarnamalya
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
 | This article was nominated for deletion on February 13, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vandalism by some indian dude
editThe article was in the category of history by a guy called rangamandira in an attempt to sort of biopgraphizing or hagiographying the topic of this article. I appreciate that he tried to update it, but seemed like just bunch of blogs. I tried to fix it, but seemed like there were too many stuff that I actually undid all his revisions, including my attempts at fixing it. I hope somebody actually fix it properly.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing in the new edits was hagiographical. In fact it brings out the many facets of the topic of this article which is very purpose of an encyclopaedic site. By deleting all the edits it has reverted to a redundant, un updated version of the topic of the article's life, works and contributions. All the links to external blogs and Vidoes were in the manner of informative collection of works that adds value to wiki page. Rangamandira (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ragmandira. As i said, i appreciated the new updates but it seemed like it is very weird in how you originally edited the article, considering most of them were linked in a very unconventional way that does not usually fit the wiki's policies regarding links. Some of the links that you edited there were often just bare links in the middle of the article and it gave me a very messy impression. Also when i originally saw your version of the article, it seemed more like a blog than an article in a wikified form and from the attic did not deserve its own sectiion seperate from the works of the said person. If it was, it should be under works and legacy not in its own total section.And your subheadings are often just randomly emphasized for no reason. Most articles don't really emphasize the subheadings unless its a title. Also by the way your infobox is broken heavily when you edited. How is that not vandalism? If you gonna add it fix it properly.Also lot of just monstrous amount of redundant categories that did not exist stand out from your edits.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Waltzingmogumogupeach:I would suggest reverting to the last good revision (by Kailash29792 from February). Rangamandira can start afresh and enhance the article incrementally. As I see the condition of the article now, it is an uphill task to fix. Jay (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)