Talk:A. Nesamony

Copyright violations

The major edits since July have involved copying large amounts of material from http://www.thengapattanam.net/kkhist.pdf (Liberation of the oppressed, a continuous struggle and viewable in html at Google here). Using copyright material is not permitted in Wikipedia, see WP:C. If anyone has questions, please ask here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality of source

I am becoming slightly concerned about the reliance on "Issac Arul Dhas G., Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony' as a source for this article. My reasons are, in particular order of importance:

1. I cannot find a version online against which to check the numerous additions
2. The citations suggest that it is written in Tamil, which presents big issues regarding policy for non-English sources - see WP:NONENG
3. There is a danger of being over-reliant on a single source that, given its subject matter, may also present a hagiographic point of view.
4. The source appears to be cited by only one other author

Can anyone assist in resolving these issues? I must admit to thinking that without some sort of greater validity being established then it may be better to remove all references to it and attempt to find alternate sources. After all, if the subject of the article is genuinely notable (which, prima facie, I think he is) then there must be alternate sources for the really important bits. I would rather see trivial life details be deleted than persist with the current situation.

There is also another reason for having some doubts about the source and these relate to a rather delicate matter. I would be prepared to discuss with an admin but feel it inappropriate to discuss here without first having that conversation because I do not want to make false accusations etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, it is hagiography, it can still be used for undisputable facts like Nesamony transport corporation was named after him. on the other hand, this sentence "He also got elected A.K.Chellaiah,Ramaswamy Pillai and N.A.Noor Mohammed as M.L.A.s from the Nadar-majority constituencies" is POV-ridden. he can not get anyone elected, it is people who vote. --CarTick (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it can only be used even for those facts if there is no alternate English language source. And the, if it is used, it needs a translation. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

good luck with those alternative en sources. --CarTick (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly read the book by Dr.G.Issac Arul Dhas, "Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony" at least once before making any adverse comment like hagiography,etc. as it is not only objectionable but also unfair and amounts to height of irresponsibility and arrogance. Either you prove someone guilty or give him the benefit of doubt instead of getting prejudiced against him. And your ignorance can never be considered a bliss to suspect every other person only because he has an opposite view point, although he is of a higher social stature than you.--Kumaripriya (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is another personal attack, then. How do you know that this author is of a higher social stature? Why should it matter? Why should I prove that the source is not reliable - it is your job to prove otherwise, per WP:CITE. Why am I ignorant? Where is this book? What is the ISBN? What language is it written in? If it is not written in English, then where is the translation? Honestly, I am getting fed up of your attitude: it is clear to me that you are not reading the policies that apply here or, if you are, then you are consistently failing to understand them.

I'll give it 48 hours or so for you to provide some answers, otherwise it will be removed under the verifiability and reliable source policies. Perhaps also WP:NOENG and WP:DUE also. Maybe even WP:NPOV. Now, you have some links to policy that you can work from. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly given listed earlier in the 'For further reading' which was ruthlessly removed by you and your master intentionally! Kindly go through them for all those details. Please stop looking at things after wearing black glasses; You will never be able to see the real beauty in them! World history repeats itself; I think A.Nesamony's case itself is not an exception!--Kumaripriya (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop these attacks. I have asked some questions above regarding the source, eg: what is the ISBN number, is there an English language version etc. Why not answer the queries instead of indulging in attacks on people? - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I went back to the version of 1 June 2011 and found the following in the Further reading section:

G. Issac Arul Dhas,'Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony'(Tamil), Nesamony Thamizhar Pathippagam, Nagercoil,2002.

While that gives a date of publication, that doesn't give much more of a lead for us to follow in tracking down the book or an English language translation thereof. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by vested interest groups

Kindly scrutinize this page history. Some vested interest groups indulge in open vandalism of this page by distorting the facts chauvinistically. There is no more justification in asking contributors further to improve it since it may again be vandalized as was done on 11 June 2011(by 'User:Sitush' for example). He/she writes a statement of his own making and then asks for clarifications like , , etc. Is he/she being given with special privileges to corrupt the truth like this in Wikipedia? The worst part of it is that, he/she thinks, it is only his/her birth right to edit in Wikipedia! Moreover, he/she believes in hypercriticism, bullying, nagging, threatening, etc. against me, for quite sometime now, (kindly refer my user talk page) for writing the historical facts which are against his liking! As a matter of fact, I am yet to understand what's the true motive behind his/her actions! If some biased people indulge like this , how can decent contributors remain neutral and contribute without fear or favor? The ISBN concept is comparatively a recent phenomenon in the Indian context, particularly more so in the Indian vernacular printing & publishing industry. Majority of the published works,though big & reputed, still don't have ISBN in India even today! Also, the notion that all books with ISBN are standard books is not true either! What is more important here is the authentic & correct encyclopedic content, but certainly not the shear-display of highhandedness & arrogance of certain individuals!Kumaripriya (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you have explained the ISBN issue. It does not address all of my concerns but it is a start. I note that one of the other major sources you have introduced since this situation "blew up" is a book that had not merely no ISBN but also a print run of 1000 copies & a "suggested donation" figure where one might usually find a price, according to the information contained in its first few pages. There are policies and guidelines regarding what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. I do understand that sometimes these may seem to be at odds with the "real world", but those are the rules. I have absolutely no issue with the concept that Nesamony is a notable person in the general sense of the term, and probably he would pass with flying colours on the Hindi (or similar) version of Wikipedia etc, but right now things look a little uncertain here. I do realise that this must seem very odd to you.

However, please bear in mind that I have no desire to cause this article to disappear from English Wikipedia. I have struggled to find suitable sources for the statements made in it but am fairly sure that they must exist, somewhere. What we have to be aware of is the need to ensure that the content is capable of being verified to reliable sources and that it is presented in a neutral manner. Given your recent editing history on other articles - most obviously ones relating to religious matters - I feel it is necessary to be careful here. This is not intended to be some sort of criticism of your views or your interests. It is merely a housekeeping matter, to ensure that what is said complies with the policies and guidelines which are in place. Please feel free to respond as I have no desire to lose either yourself or this article from the English Wikipedia project and, indeed, I am happy to help you where I can.. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Main article after your edits now not only lacks substance and luster, but also looks like WP:FORUM or Chains of reasons than a full-fledged Wikipedia article page due to WP:CITEKILL, WP:BOMBARD and WP:FACTS together with too many citations and references throwing WP:AGF to the wind. I am not sure whether it was intentional or not, but it certainly displays a sort of black-out based on a sarcastic hatred and nitpicking in a subtle manner. Kindly clarify the following discrepancies (don't avoid direct answers as in the past please) : 1. Specify the title and author of the book that 'triggered' your contention/suspicion and subsequently got 'blacklisted'! 2. What happened to citations of previous format and why further reading list removed? 3. Nair Service Society or Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam have nothing to do with Marshal Nesamony but how come they appear in the article content? NSS is a caste organization established by Nairs, of Nairs and for Nairs only whereas SNDP ia a forum of only Ezhava caste people though they say 'One God, One Caste' concept. Both are apolitical outfits/groups! On the contrary, Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress (TTNC) was a political party, having ranks and files from all castes and creeds of Travancore Tamils, with nearly 14 MLAs and 2 MPs then. Hence, inclusion of NSS and SNDP seems to be irrelevant as well as improper since they have no link with Nesamony or Travancore Tamils. 4. The primary factor for the merger of Kanyakumari district with Tamil Nadu was mother tongue Tamil though there were certain secondary reasons too! The aggressive, stubburn and separatist demands of Malayalees (with slogans such as 'Kerala - the motherland of only Malayalees', 'United Keralam from Kanyakumari to Kasaragod comprising erstwhile Travancore, Cochin and Malabar princely states', etc.), forgetting the fact that Malayalam language itself was originated from ancient Tamil language, cannot be ignored either! Why all these historical facts don't find a place in your edits? :- --Kumaripriya (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit confused regarding your message above. Some of it is probably neither your fault nor mine. I will do my best to respond. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

Firstly, I am unsure what you mean when you say that the article now lacks "luster". Articles on Wikipedia are intended to be encyclopedic and "luster" plays no part in an encyclopedia. Our role is not to make someone or something look good. I presume that this is our different interpretations of the word. I am aware of your previous contribution history, where you have had issues with promoting a specific viewpoint and got into some trouble for doing so. I would like to assume good faith but I feel that I also have a duty of care and note that at least one other recent contributor to this talk page expressed some doubt. That "sort of" explains your raising of AGF. You are not on "probation" for ever, but there is a history that needs consideration. My apologies if you think that I have taken this to an extreme.

WP:BOMBARD is an essay. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. Essays are Good Things, but they can often be used in two diametrically opposed ways. This particular one seems to me to be particularly open to that variance of opinion, although I had never seen it before you linked to the thing.

Equally, I have not seen a link to WP:FACTS previously. This does not mean that you are wrong, but I am somewhat surprised to have gone 17,000 or 18,000 of edits without coming across it. Feel free to raise any issues there, although WP:RSN is in my experience the resource that is linked to.

And, again, I have never seen a mention of WP:CITEKILL. You must by now wonder what I have been doing for the last four years or so! It is an essay and I must admit that, without ever seeing it before, it does rather encapsulate my attitude. However, it is not an excuse for the WP:CITE guideline, which will take priority because it is a guideline rather than an essay. If you follow WP:CITE through its umpteen meanderings, you will see that my request ultimately comes down to whether the source your have used meet the reliable sources criteria and your apparent inability to provide an ISBN/English translation etc, plus the opinion of CarTick above, makes me doubt that they do. However, I have asked you to respond to these queries previously and have had no substantive reply. You have merely "gone off on one" and countered my perfectly valid queries with (mild) attacks.

WP:FORUM is one that I have seen before, albeit as WP:SOAP (the two are the same). I do not, however, understand the point that you are trying to make in linking to it. If anything, it probably supports my position more than it does yours. I used the word "hagiography" in a previous thread here. That remains one of my concerns. I do appreciate that it is perhaps a word that you have not come across before. In simple terms, it means "glorifying", although it is a bit more complicated than that. Let me know if you need more info on this.

For the record, I have no "vested interest" in this subject matter. I suspect that you may have but I certainly do not. I am not living in India, have never visited the place, am not of Indian descent, had never heard of Nesamony before my edits here, and have no possible relevant connection that you could possibly use to indicate, say, a conflict of interest. I cannot recall off the top of my head why I did get involved here but, most likely, it was because an error was thrown up due to some contributor trying to edit the article and messing up the citations. I sometimes monitor a category for articles with Reflist errors, so this seems most likely.

Now, to turn to your specific points

1. - I presume that you mean by this the book Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony. My reasoning is explained above and in the numerous edit summaries. Your responses have not been, in my opinion, adequate. However, nowhere have I claimed that the book is "blacklisted".
2. - the Further Reading list was removed per my edit here. As far as I am aware, this was correct. We do not include in a Further Reading section sources that are already cited in the body of the article. This is documented in a proposal at Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections. I agree that it is only a proposal, but those of us with experience here have, I feel, tended to implement it as a matter of course. Simply because it makes sense.
3. - NSS etc are relevant background information. Whatever Nesamony did was done in an environment where other people were doing similar things. Both groups mentioned formed political parties (eventually) and both were for a long time before that (sometimes political) pressure groups. There is a co-relation and it certainly does no harm to include the information. Unless, of course, you have some dislike of those groups. Is this the problem?
4. - I am sorry, but this just seems to demonstrate that you may have a POV and perhaps even a conflict of interest. You may be involved but I am not. I am not even sure how your point relates to the content of the article at any stage as I do not recall (and cannot find in the history) any suggestion that this was some sort of linguistic and/or "racial" issue. It may have been, for sure, but it has not been said. And if you should say it then, please, ensure that you provide decent sources for your statement(s).

I hope that this helps to explain things. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify. There is a mention of the linguistic reorganisation of states in the article. I think that I may have provided the wikilink for that but am not going to delve into the history to prove the point as it does not matter unduly who linked to it. I remain unsure of the connection which you are trying to make between that and your points above. It all seems a little vague and, if indeed I did add the link, I would have been merely being trying to continue the process of housekeeping. I will reiterate that I do not have much concern regarding the "real world" notability of Nesamony. Unfortunately, there are occasions when the real world and Wikipedia collide. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for affirming and confirming my doubts and apprehensions pertaining to your edits on A.Nesamony page. They say that little knowledge of anything is dangerous; so one can easily assume the case with no knowledge becoming seriously dangerous. This is exactly the result of your senseless edits following two different set of rules of editing for yourself and for me. Please practise before you preach! Kindly cite sources for NSS & SNDP to justify their inclusion under the sub-heading background in this page without violating the WP:NOR. Similarly don't write plain vague statements first, then ask for reasons and citations from others; as they become WP:POV (What way you would have responded if I were doing the same like you?).

Neither a POV-problem nor a conflict of interest I have as far as furnishing the actual reason for the due formation of Kanyakumari district and its subsequent merger to Tamil Nadu is concerned. I just answered your question.You may refer to pages after your edit onwards in which you have asked for the formation of Kanyakumari district!

The book titled "Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony"(Tamil) / (meaning "Nesamony - Defender of Southern Border" in English) was written by Dr. G. Issac Arul Dhas, M.A., M.Phill., Ph.D., C.L.; was published by Nesamony Tamizhar Pathippagam, 60,C-2, Daniel Compound, Near Water Tank, Nagercoil-629 001. (Tel: +91-04652-231208); and its first copy was released by the then Union Minister for Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, Mr. Pon Radhakrishnan M.A., B.L., M.P. in the erstwhile B.J.P. ministry of N.D.A. on the occasion of 108th birth anniversary of Marshal Nesamony on 12th June 2002 at Allen Memorial Hall in Nagercoil. INMHO, this scholarly book gives a good record of the virtues of Nesamony without resorting to hagiography (i.e. too much praising or glorifying or idealizing or idolizing biography and thereby edifying the reader). Also it doesn't indulge in famicide against Nesamony as it happened in Wikipedia's A.Nesamony page in the name of neutrality in the past. I would like to apologize for not updating you about this book promptly due to my real world time constraints. :- --Kumaripriya (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided the citations for NSS and SNDP. I had previously tagged that they needed citing.

Some days ago I added a link to the article on linguistic reorganisation. However, it needs some sort of explanation in this article, hence the "why?".

The source you are using is clearly not great, for two principle reasons. It is a non-English source and the name of the publisher is suspect and would incline me to think that it may be an "involved" source, almost as much so as an outright self-published source. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and for notability requires that those sources are independent. The publishing house name makes me doubt their independence. Are there are criticisms of Nesamony in that work? - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now done a search for books/academic articles etc that cite works published by Nesamony Tamizhar Pathippagam. I have been unable to find any at all. This is not a great sign. Can you find any? Similarly, I am struggling to find much that has been written by G. Isaac Arul Dhas - there are some bits but a Google search of the full name in quotes lists only five entries anywhere on the web. Are there alternate spellings of the name? Do you know what the first name is? Can you find anything further? - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again for confirming it. You are definitely part of a vested interest group. You already advocated to have two truths for one single event. Sorry, I neither believe in duplicity nor support the same. As far as Dr. Issac Arul Dhas is concerned, he is just an academician, a writer and a research scholar. Nesamony Tamizhar Pathippagam is a book-publisher who has published many books by various authors. The person who released the particular book is now president of the Tamil Nadu unit of B.J.P. Then how you are jumping into a prejudgement that it is a self-published unreliable source? Moreover, I don't want to have any more frank discussions with you since you have preconceived ideas about this particular topic of A. Nesamony, although your knowledge about him is a big zero. Kindly don't rape the page any more! I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink! :---Kumaripriya (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So now you are saying that there is a connection between the book and the BJP, which is a political party. I am sorry, but I think that it is going to have to go. There is little chance that it is a reliable source and you still have not answered my query regarding whether or not it contains any criticism of Nesamony. I will seek a second opinion but, frankly, I think that all books by the publisher may now be in doubt. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Go and get your designation changed at Wikipedia immediately from contributor to conspirator that would be more appropriate for you! :- --Kumaripriya (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The contents of evidence-material cited above by me on 21 June 2011 has been found removed/missing now, in that external link, for which I am not responsible. Meanwhile, I may review or revoke or revert, if required as and when the occasion arises, some portions since the main article page, after your last marathon edits on 11th June 2011 coinciding with the eve of A.Nesamony's birth anniversary, lacks in substance to the standards of Wikipedia. :- --Kumaripriya (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that I was editing on the anniversary of the subject's birth. However, is there a policy against this? The reasons for removing the Further Reading section has been explained to you. If you want to cite a statement then use a citation, not further reading etc. I can forgive newbies who do not know how to cite, but you do and therefore should. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumaripriya, I have sought the comments of two admins regarding this issue. The details can be found at User_talk:Drmies#Query about a source and at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Sourcing issue at A. Nesamony. It would probably be worth you taking some time to read them. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that a copy of the book in question has been located at Connemara Public Library at last. I sincerely request your goodself to go through it (of course, with help from your friends, as the same is in Tamil) since the book also contains some rare informative pictures like that of the Special Commemorative Postal Envelope published at the birth centenary of Marshal Nesamony in 1995 by Government of India, the election symbol of TTNC,etc. which I am sure will be able to meet your expectations. :---Kumaripriya (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what the people commenting said. As a consequence, I have no option but to remove all references using this publisher. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sad indeed! Then what about including it in 'Further reading' list? :- --Kumaripriya (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a non-English language, limited print run publisher and appears likely to be very biased. It simply does not seem to be acceptable without at least an English translation and an equivalent from "the other side" of the discussion. It is highly unlikely that Nesamony never sinned, but everything that has been said/found out about this publisher suggests that they sanitise to present hagiographic portrayals- Sitush (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The explanation furnished above has created more confusions in my mind than any clarification for the following reasons:

1. Can you please name any book that gives an authentic account of Marshal Nesamony's bad deeds in those days because I am not aware of any such sins or affairs in his political/social/religious/legal activities till date.
2. A book from Vivekanand kendra will definitely describe only the virtues of Swami Vivekananda. Any book by the theosophical publishing house will only narrate the goodness of religion(s), but never the vice of religion(s). It's quite normal and acceptable. Then, how can a book published by Nesamony Tamizhar Pathippagam on Nesamony's life be branded as 'hagiography' only because it doesn't possess mud-slinging & back-biting gossip stuff against Nesamony? Also how it can be blacklisted & totally blacked out without any reason or rhyme? It is always good to give credit to authors.
3. The connotation that the book 'Then Ellai Kaavalan Nesamony' by Dr. Issac Arul Dhas is no good as a citation reference source and unfit for its inclusion to further reading list hence seems to be baseless as well as biased, because similar books by followers of other subjects mentioned here have been simply allowed without any hindrance in citations/references/lists. Probably the translators must have messed it up so you must have missed out the correct meaning.
4. Everywhere publishers will bother about their profits only. Hence we can't comment on the number of copies printed, the language of choice for publication,etc. However, in this global village of our shrunk planet, language is an absolute non-issue and the truth is the only issue! :---Kumaripriya (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You simply will not let it go, will you?

1. No, I cannot. It is not my problem. However, human nature being what it is, there is no way the guy was perfect and any biography which does not consider a person's imperfections is, almost by definition, hagiographic. As such, they are not reliable sources.
2. I have not refer to mudslinging etc - those are your emotive words. However, I refer you to other stuff exists as, I believe, I have done previously. It really does not matter what another article does. The reasons for considering the source here to be unreliable have been told to you time and again so please do not claim otherwise, as you do above.
3. WP:OSE
4. Irrelevant. Wikipedia does not deal in truth but in verifiability. I have had a long discussion with you about "truth" and it became evident from it that you have an extremely narrow view of things. This was also evident from your warring on religious articles etc and your personal attacks. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind and prompt reply, but I am still waiting and searching for the answers to my queries!

Kindly desist from removing vital historical factual information from the main page, such as Nesamony's fruitful fight against caste discrimination inside the court hall then, chairs for upper castes and stools for lower castes, as it's an important achievement by him in those days.

Being very successful both in politics and legal profession, it seems that Marshal Nesamony must have won lots of fake friends but true enemies from all walks of life including our Wikipedia. Otherwise, how come a different set of rules and yardsticks only for his page, all in the name of so-called 'controversial stuff'? :---Kumaripriya (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have not understood what I have already said then I fear that Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. You do not get your own way anywhere here but rather have to work on the basis of consensus etc. In this particular instance I have explained time and again why it is unsuitable and also pointed you to the comments of others. I do not intend to continue this conversation. It is a complete waste of time until you begin to use your listening ears. If you want to engage in an adult conversation then that is fine but right now you are just being trenchant. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't expect me to be a 'mute spectator' when you deliberately want to cook-up an edit conflict situation just to silence the opposite view points, even though there exists a printed and published proof to substantiate and support the same, with some half-baked cock-n-bull stories and certain lame excuses. Also don't blame the innocent contributor for producing hard evidence that was not self-published by him or the author for their self-praises or self-publicity or flattery! Please refer to WP:BB and I am a proud Wikipedian to proclaim the truth aloud always!

Recently, there was a message from Wikipedia, while expressing deep concern & anguish, earnestly asking for the reasons why new contributors disappear fast from the edit scenario without any trace later on. Statements like 'Wikipedia is not the right place for you', frequent interference with edits of others just because they don't endorse your personal view points in the articles, scathing but sarcastic remarks over their edits although there is enough substance matter in them, unwanted issuance of threats and warnings, subtle attacks/counter-attacks, etc. will not do any good to Wikipedia but can certainly do damage to Wikipedia, by chasing away the genuine and right talents while spoiling its reputation in the long run.Don't forget that no one including you is indispensable in this world. Hence I request you not to repeat the same stunts in future, because we are not kids!

Kindly don't allow Wikipedia's article pages to be converted to that of a tabloid by needlessly concentrating and printing the gossips/sins about/of notable people as they will be of no use to others!--Kumaripriya (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A. Nesamony. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404203355/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718185108/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1967/Vol_I_LS_67.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1967/Vol_I_LS_67.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)