October 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Mumtaz (actress), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it's a bit too unfair.... you remove my edit in a few hours, but don't respond to my messages even after 10 days! Juhi47 (talk)
Still there's no response from you... Please let me know to which particular information you have objection... Maybe, there's none and I should undo the edit yet again. Juhi47 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted the changes, as you have not indicated any objection for the information that was removed, even after a fortnight of my initial request, and repeated reminders. From my personal knowledge and from the information already available on various sites, I know that all of it is correct. Juhi47 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mumtaz (actress). Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Now that's real 'quick'! Somehow you did not choose to respond to my mails for a fortnight, but undid the change so quickly... Wonder whether if that's not grossly unjust, then what exactly is? Anyway, wonder as to how you would consider the information referenced? When Mumtaz was active in Hindi Cinema, Internet was unheard of. So, whatever critical information about her professional life is available, is actually in print media. Transcripts of some of the articles are available at www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz/articles.html. Other sources are the sites which have been created with memories of various persons following her life; her interviews; or information from her family members, etc. However the information exchanged in communications would hardly be available in print. It's not only impossible but also unethical to record the conversations. Hence, there would a large amount of information which cannot be cross-referenced tangibly. Anyway, let's have look at a single article where every word, every phrase, every sentence, and every para is cross-referenced! If you are unsure of something and don't believe others who have added that information, it would be prudent to ask other Indian moderators who might have been following her life. Strangely, the information that you have deleted is also not un-referenced?! Nor is it controversial! So, could you please let me know exactly as to what you want me to 'prove'? Juhi47 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Mumtaz
editAnswering your message here, firstly any comments/clarification are best done in the RfC (available to all), secondly, the way WP works is that editing has to be based on what is available in WP:RS, rather than knowledge of this particular actress or of the 'Indian scene', I have often commented on subjects about which I knew nothing before going to the RfC, but was able to do so because of the information made available at the RfC. This WP principle is sometimes frustrating, because it may mean that info you are sure is true, is not includable. This is especially true of living (or recently deceased) people. Thirdly, an RfC can only answer specific questions, there may be noticeboards which would attract editors with a knowledge either of the subject, or of the available sources. I am not competent to help really, nor am I sure what question the RfC is asking. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)