![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sir, I urge you to delete my account Aryanjat on wikipedia because I'm highly unsatisfied with the admins,,,mods here. I'm new to wiki and was trying to build new articles,and edit existing ones with my concern but whenever I edit or crete new page,,someone or the other revert it or delete it,,,sad thing is this that I was editing and creating pages with valid references...and even after providing references all that was done. So,plz.,with due respect,delete my account on wiki as this is my last visit. Thank you for injustice!! ( Aryanjat ( talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)) Aryanjat ( talk) 02:09 IST, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Another task for a wise admin! Can you review if this article has sufficient secondary sources and if you have any concerns highlight them on the talk ? Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
PMFJI, but it will be difficult to treat the subject(s) properly. The vast majority of relevant material will "fail" the usual canons of
reliable sourcing should anyone wikilawyer the matter (i.e. steadfastly refuse to
WP:UCS.) The basic reason for this - and the root issue - is that the scholarship of established academics - i.e. exactly the ones who most securely have WP's
WP:RS rules on their side - is being questioned and challenged. This challenge could not be prosecuted in the standard
WP:RS loci - peer-reviewed academic journals - for obvious reasons. WP coverage is thus obliged to wait for someone suitably qualified academically to write about it in a book that might squeak past
WP:RS. (As of now, this kind of literature is just beginning to appear.) Further, these academics have successfully preempted the (meagre) media coverage and suborned inveigled impressionable journalists into represent the issue as one of death-threat-fulminating yahoos, yobs and otherwise benighted malcontents assaulting the hallowed principles of academic freedom... or something like that. So news coverage is off the mark too. Finally, it isn't a subject for
Hinduism in the United States either, because, again, the root issue is pseudoscholarship (thus,
Theorization (and Consequent Pedagogy) of Hinduism in American Universities is more like it), but on WP you can't say that "scholars" in the WP definition are not scholars. Truth gives way to verifiability, and that's why
Rajiv Malhotra will eventually be Afd'd.
rudra (
talk)
14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(Addendum: Pseudoscholarship, Exhibit 1) rudra ( talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think a semi-pp would be in order? Dab did a lot of cleanup to remove OR. since then multiple IPs have come back and added back in. Sikh-history and I have been trying to maintain it, but reverting so many times is a bit difficult. cheers. – Spaceman Spiff 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at AN/I in which you may be interested in participating. Radiopathy •talk• 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, vist the discussion page here. Chhora ( talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I also received a request from WGB through email, asking for me to bring his case up at ANI. I declined for three reasons:
On EBL's talk page, I pointed out that as I had received an email from WGB just after a post by EBL on the talk page, I had WGB's IP (from the headers). EBL seems to be saying that they are happy for a Check User to compare this IP with their own - I don't know if my forwarding the email with the headers to a CU would be acceptable? If so, I presume I'd have to forward it to the CU mailing list - although in the meantime, I will send the same offer to WGB through email. I'll also explain that a CU would be able to definitively say if they were the same IP.
I was not aware that WGB had been in contact with BASC. In fact, in one of the emails I received this morning, he specifically said that all the emails which he had sent to the BASC address had bounced back.
Anyway, I thought I would update you. Any advice would be welcome!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi.. some user has been adding offensive information like this and this for some days now. He is calling ladies from other castes as concubines and Sudras, despite enough sources given in talk page. He was warned earlier to not indulge in sock puppetry here, but still not relenting. I fear talk like this might inflame communal tensions. Can you please check his IP and whether he is an established user? 122.177.232.141 ( talk) 14:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
85.210.175.63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Read the discussion. We need a rest for a while. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look? I'm a little curious about the three sources added, one doesn't look reliable, no library holdings, the other appears to be conjecture, the third can't say. Quite similar to Mkbdce contributions. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Was him, see the conversation on my talk page. He's inserting similar nonsense in different articles (revered on Nishada Kingdom), the conversation on Mahabharata is between two socks of his! — Spaceman Spiff 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You are requested to visit the article once again and give your observations. 'Co-author' has been replaced by 'Contributor'. A list of their publications have been added further. One thing cannot be disputed that their volume and quality of work carried out together as scientists is remarkable. Of course the article requires some third party references, which will be provided soon.
arunbandana 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana ( talk • contribs)
Hi, you previously blocked this guy for disruptive editing, and I blocked the account again for socking. I think the account is itself a sock of Onelifefreak2007 ( talk · contribs), compare editing behavior with another sock, Razzinator ( talk · contribs). Thoughts? (Feel free to block indef and tag if you concur, I have not done that yet.) Cirt ( talk) 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again.
On 28 July 2009, an admin decided on the AFD of Conrad Murray as keep. On 5 August 2009, another administrator (NuclearWarfare or NW) stated on that talk page that he wanted to redirect the article. 4 days later, NW did so and also protected the article to prevent re-creation. It seems like an admin starting a redirect so soon after the AFD then page protecting it is thumbing their nose at the AFD. It also seems like a conflict of interest because they are proposing the change (like a prosecutor), deciding it (like a judge), and locking it up (like a jailer). Furthermore, nothing of the old article exists in the redirect target. This really doesn't seem right. I just wanted to find some bio info on Murray and it took a lot of work to uncover.
On the other hand, maybe quickly defacto deleting after a keep AFD can be done in this way? I thought Deletion review was the correct way?
I do not seek punishment against anyone or even change in the articles. I am just confused seeing the behaviour. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's him. And I had to nag you for a participation in an amusing photo poll YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:NJA for my proposition about a new article about Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time. If that's not the right place to talk, could you show me the way as an administrator? I'm new. If I'm not welcome here, I can leave. Is putting references wrong? If I weren't User:Yuzgen but somebody else, would that be OK to give links to external sites? Because you said links to web sites with which you are affiliated here: User_talk:Yuzgen.
You reverted linkspam here: [2].
Yuzgen ( talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yuzgen ( talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess this will get a lot longer but I still want to ask you a question... Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page#Awards_and_recognition. There are references to Forbes and PC_World_(magazine).
Now, the question... Are Forbes and PC_World_(magazine) more reliable than Britannica? If you say "No.", please let me start to remove some references from Wikipedia. If "Yes.", I will go ahead and say "You don't deserve to administrate here." and contact other administrators.
PS: I'm talking about WP:Notability and WP:NBOOK when I'm talking about reliability. Remember that you gave me those links above and claimed the Britannica book does not suit them. Yuzgen ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards Pournick ( talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I've left a note at the talk page for Vijai S. Shankar, and given your involvement in the proposed deletion, I thought I might give you a heads up. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for semi protection but why its just 3 days for my talk page?, I have seen some admins of Persian wiki who sometimes protects one's talk page for two weeks or more! So it should be illegal according to you as I understand. Also the problem is: that user attacks me by I.P.address not by his/her real username, so I guess the admins will not be able to block his/her usernmae next time when he/she will attack me by a new I.P. I have a question too, what is the differences between semi and full protection? why didn't you protect me full? Regards, Pournick ( talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this issue on the talk page, as you said you would? Dark Laughter ( talk) 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
thanks for advise !
plz delete all my images as they are not lisenced and falsly uploaded by me.
thanks
-- Last Emperor ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. There are 3 persons who say something about the article Dr. Shankar.
One was agree with the article after copyright suplement. One had remark and give some time to respond.
You did not respect and removed everything.
I can not understand.
Please undelete and let know where we have to change.
Regards, Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC))( 81.206.31.54 ( talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.31.54 ( talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for explaining. Understanding is better now.
We go for a new text and hope better for you/wiki.
Please move article to userspace.
Thank you,
Gerard (
Gerabene (
talk)
20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you A, Wil let you know. Apreciate your help!! Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC))
Hi A, Please look to new text. Would this be wiki proof?? Thanks, Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
Rudasharman ( talk · contribs) looks to an impersonation of Rudrasharman ( talk · contribs), and also a likely sock of Mkbdtu ( talk · contribs), right?
Hi, this Photo has been uploaded to commons from english wikipedia by user sundar and points to this as the source. The original uploader's ( Kumar Rajendran) details, edit summary and copyright declaration were lost when it was transferred to commons. During GA review of an article, where i used the pic, the reviewer raised questions about who actually owns the copy right. The original uploaded file (with edit summary and copyright declaration) is here. Can you retrieve the information and add it to the commons image?.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This time I come with an observation, not a question. Some administrator are very wise, like you. Some are not very wise, at all. Some of these unwise ones frequent WP:ANI. Not all the admininstrators who post there lack wisdom, though.
There have been proposals for desysop. Rather than be punitive, I come to you with a positive idea.
What if there were very strict behavioural criteria written up? If one passes them, then they would receive a special certification good for a certain period of time, maybe 6 months, maybe 1 year. The criteria can be discussed. It could be utmost professionalism, politeness, knowledge, good editorial contributions and/or not engaging in any conflict of interest.
What do you think of the general idea? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello I am only posting this on your talk because I just came from User talk:Radiopathy, where I saw you had posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Radiopathy_reported_by_User:Koavf_.28Result:_.29. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Koavf continues to edit war and "UK troll" at Hollie Steel. Note that we've been given " instructions" on how he wants the article to appear. Notice also that I've put the issue out for consensus. I've reverted Koavf's change pending consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You have some more.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless there are privacy concerns, you both can post here directly instead of using email. An open process is always preferable. Abecedare ( talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Abecedare. Radiopathy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to an unblock or shortening because, the user was told at
2:16 UTC and again at
2:46 UTC by two different editors that the edits were not vandalism - and made at least 5 more reverts after that. So the unblock reason is patently false.
As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I
once more only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{
retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example
this and
this version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards.
Abecedare (
talk)
05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Although you have told me to disengage unless reporting, I feel the following should be said at his talk page, in response to his latest reply:
Thank you for your time. I have not said this yet. I also feel that if I point this out, he'll just blank it.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
What are some good sources for the Sankaracharyas? Wikidas has nominated a few for deletion, and I can't think of many search strings to find the right sources. — Spaceman Spiff 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Rudra: Thanks for the link. I haven't ever looked at this topic, so look forward to reading the pdf for my own curiosity.
Sodabottle: Definitely a concern, especially for the early Shankracharyas. The description at
kamakoti has to be treated pretty much a matter of faith, rather than a historical account. (e.g, they place
Adi Shankara in 6th c BC).
Spaceman: Haven't found anything useful yet besides the kamakoti site. Not much use in having a separate article if all we can say is "... was the 66th Shanakaracharya of the Kanchi Matha". Will keep looking, although search is complicated by the fact that the 68th Shankaracharya who served from 1907-1994 (!) was also named Chandrasekarendra Saraswati.
Abecedare (
talk)
18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) The TOI self-publicity is a hoot: "The book is a good mix of text and photographs, making it pleasing to read through even while experiencing spiritual upliftment." ... prose fit for a wikipedia article and I'm sure we'll be seeing it here soon. ;-) Abecedare ( talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored.
Here is pointwise reply to your comments
Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree
[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]
Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist. [1] [2] [3] [4] References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism , which indicates good faith in putting this most important controversial part.
NOT including this section or significant view as a part of controversy & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.
No original research policy not followed: Disagree
It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).
No reliable sourcing:Disagree
References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.
Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree
Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.
In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005) under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points , now deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.
Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. -- Jugal ( talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You deleted text again. All type of references given , you some time showing either primary sources or burning , thats why u missing other references.-- Jugal ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Propaganda Machine, Whatever Manu wrote became history, along with all criticism raised by people thorugh all means & Shudra, women.You can not revert or undo History , but i do not know how many people are going to beleive this wiki article only.What about other sources.Wiki loses its credibility because of people like you.India already lost everything because of ur ancecstors and became a 3rd world ctr. -- Jugal ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
By using another account same user reverting edits , removing views , reliable references.You can varify by last two edits 18:27, 25 February 2010, 18:27, 25 February 2010, .These edits made by same user by two diffrent account(see talk page on both user) -- Jugal ( talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the biblio at Manusmriti (and a number of other pages) this is a book by Patrick Olivelle.
Which, to say the least, is odd. How did more than one editor back in late 2008 know of and cite a book/article/whatever by a well-known scholar that seems untraceable since? rudra ( talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I know what happened: Firstly, unless I am gravely mistaken, User:Jcwent is on the up-and-up. During that time when he was editing there was a course project of UW-Madison students taking a class on Hindu Law (IIRC), who were being guided by their professor in editing wikipedia pages. I had interacted with a few of them (see this), and they did a good bit in making a few wikipedia articles in the area encyclopedic. I can imagine that the students had access to a pre-print version of the Cambridge Handbook of Law and Hinduism, ed. T. Lubin and D. Davis, which has either still not been published, or was published under a different title. Of course if the book remains unpublished, we may need to remove it, but I'd tend to trust material added by that group of editors. Abecedare ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sir, I urge you to delete my account Aryanjat on wikipedia because I'm highly unsatisfied with the admins,,,mods here. I'm new to wiki and was trying to build new articles,and edit existing ones with my concern but whenever I edit or crete new page,,someone or the other revert it or delete it,,,sad thing is this that I was editing and creating pages with valid references...and even after providing references all that was done. So,plz.,with due respect,delete my account on wiki as this is my last visit. Thank you for injustice!! ( Aryanjat ( talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)) Aryanjat ( talk) 02:09 IST, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Another task for a wise admin! Can you review if this article has sufficient secondary sources and if you have any concerns highlight them on the talk ? Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
PMFJI, but it will be difficult to treat the subject(s) properly. The vast majority of relevant material will "fail" the usual canons of
reliable sourcing should anyone wikilawyer the matter (i.e. steadfastly refuse to
WP:UCS.) The basic reason for this - and the root issue - is that the scholarship of established academics - i.e. exactly the ones who most securely have WP's
WP:RS rules on their side - is being questioned and challenged. This challenge could not be prosecuted in the standard
WP:RS loci - peer-reviewed academic journals - for obvious reasons. WP coverage is thus obliged to wait for someone suitably qualified academically to write about it in a book that might squeak past
WP:RS. (As of now, this kind of literature is just beginning to appear.) Further, these academics have successfully preempted the (meagre) media coverage and suborned inveigled impressionable journalists into represent the issue as one of death-threat-fulminating yahoos, yobs and otherwise benighted malcontents assaulting the hallowed principles of academic freedom... or something like that. So news coverage is off the mark too. Finally, it isn't a subject for
Hinduism in the United States either, because, again, the root issue is pseudoscholarship (thus,
Theorization (and Consequent Pedagogy) of Hinduism in American Universities is more like it), but on WP you can't say that "scholars" in the WP definition are not scholars. Truth gives way to verifiability, and that's why
Rajiv Malhotra will eventually be Afd'd.
rudra (
talk)
14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(Addendum: Pseudoscholarship, Exhibit 1) rudra ( talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think a semi-pp would be in order? Dab did a lot of cleanup to remove OR. since then multiple IPs have come back and added back in. Sikh-history and I have been trying to maintain it, but reverting so many times is a bit difficult. cheers. – Spaceman Spiff 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at AN/I in which you may be interested in participating. Radiopathy •talk• 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, vist the discussion page here. Chhora ( talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I also received a request from WGB through email, asking for me to bring his case up at ANI. I declined for three reasons:
On EBL's talk page, I pointed out that as I had received an email from WGB just after a post by EBL on the talk page, I had WGB's IP (from the headers). EBL seems to be saying that they are happy for a Check User to compare this IP with their own - I don't know if my forwarding the email with the headers to a CU would be acceptable? If so, I presume I'd have to forward it to the CU mailing list - although in the meantime, I will send the same offer to WGB through email. I'll also explain that a CU would be able to definitively say if they were the same IP.
I was not aware that WGB had been in contact with BASC. In fact, in one of the emails I received this morning, he specifically said that all the emails which he had sent to the BASC address had bounced back.
Anyway, I thought I would update you. Any advice would be welcome!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi.. some user has been adding offensive information like this and this for some days now. He is calling ladies from other castes as concubines and Sudras, despite enough sources given in talk page. He was warned earlier to not indulge in sock puppetry here, but still not relenting. I fear talk like this might inflame communal tensions. Can you please check his IP and whether he is an established user? 122.177.232.141 ( talk) 14:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
85.210.175.63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Read the discussion. We need a rest for a while. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look? I'm a little curious about the three sources added, one doesn't look reliable, no library holdings, the other appears to be conjecture, the third can't say. Quite similar to Mkbdce contributions. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Was him, see the conversation on my talk page. He's inserting similar nonsense in different articles (revered on Nishada Kingdom), the conversation on Mahabharata is between two socks of his! — Spaceman Spiff 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You are requested to visit the article once again and give your observations. 'Co-author' has been replaced by 'Contributor'. A list of their publications have been added further. One thing cannot be disputed that their volume and quality of work carried out together as scientists is remarkable. Of course the article requires some third party references, which will be provided soon.
arunbandana 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana ( talk • contribs)
Hi, you previously blocked this guy for disruptive editing, and I blocked the account again for socking. I think the account is itself a sock of Onelifefreak2007 ( talk · contribs), compare editing behavior with another sock, Razzinator ( talk · contribs). Thoughts? (Feel free to block indef and tag if you concur, I have not done that yet.) Cirt ( talk) 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again.
On 28 July 2009, an admin decided on the AFD of Conrad Murray as keep. On 5 August 2009, another administrator (NuclearWarfare or NW) stated on that talk page that he wanted to redirect the article. 4 days later, NW did so and also protected the article to prevent re-creation. It seems like an admin starting a redirect so soon after the AFD then page protecting it is thumbing their nose at the AFD. It also seems like a conflict of interest because they are proposing the change (like a prosecutor), deciding it (like a judge), and locking it up (like a jailer). Furthermore, nothing of the old article exists in the redirect target. This really doesn't seem right. I just wanted to find some bio info on Murray and it took a lot of work to uncover.
On the other hand, maybe quickly defacto deleting after a keep AFD can be done in this way? I thought Deletion review was the correct way?
I do not seek punishment against anyone or even change in the articles. I am just confused seeing the behaviour. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's him. And I had to nag you for a participation in an amusing photo poll YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:NJA for my proposition about a new article about Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time. If that's not the right place to talk, could you show me the way as an administrator? I'm new. If I'm not welcome here, I can leave. Is putting references wrong? If I weren't User:Yuzgen but somebody else, would that be OK to give links to external sites? Because you said links to web sites with which you are affiliated here: User_talk:Yuzgen.
You reverted linkspam here: [2].
Yuzgen ( talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yuzgen ( talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess this will get a lot longer but I still want to ask you a question... Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page#Awards_and_recognition. There are references to Forbes and PC_World_(magazine).
Now, the question... Are Forbes and PC_World_(magazine) more reliable than Britannica? If you say "No.", please let me start to remove some references from Wikipedia. If "Yes.", I will go ahead and say "You don't deserve to administrate here." and contact other administrators.
PS: I'm talking about WP:Notability and WP:NBOOK when I'm talking about reliability. Remember that you gave me those links above and claimed the Britannica book does not suit them. Yuzgen ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards Pournick ( talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I've left a note at the talk page for Vijai S. Shankar, and given your involvement in the proposed deletion, I thought I might give you a heads up. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for semi protection but why its just 3 days for my talk page?, I have seen some admins of Persian wiki who sometimes protects one's talk page for two weeks or more! So it should be illegal according to you as I understand. Also the problem is: that user attacks me by I.P.address not by his/her real username, so I guess the admins will not be able to block his/her usernmae next time when he/she will attack me by a new I.P. I have a question too, what is the differences between semi and full protection? why didn't you protect me full? Regards, Pournick ( talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this issue on the talk page, as you said you would? Dark Laughter ( talk) 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
thanks for advise !
plz delete all my images as they are not lisenced and falsly uploaded by me.
thanks
-- Last Emperor ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. There are 3 persons who say something about the article Dr. Shankar.
One was agree with the article after copyright suplement. One had remark and give some time to respond.
You did not respect and removed everything.
I can not understand.
Please undelete and let know where we have to change.
Regards, Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC))( 81.206.31.54 ( talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.31.54 ( talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for explaining. Understanding is better now.
We go for a new text and hope better for you/wiki.
Please move article to userspace.
Thank you,
Gerard (
Gerabene (
talk)
20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you A, Wil let you know. Apreciate your help!! Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC))
Hi A, Please look to new text. Would this be wiki proof?? Thanks, Gerard ( Gerabene ( talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
Rudasharman ( talk · contribs) looks to an impersonation of Rudrasharman ( talk · contribs), and also a likely sock of Mkbdtu ( talk · contribs), right?
Hi, this Photo has been uploaded to commons from english wikipedia by user sundar and points to this as the source. The original uploader's ( Kumar Rajendran) details, edit summary and copyright declaration were lost when it was transferred to commons. During GA review of an article, where i used the pic, the reviewer raised questions about who actually owns the copy right. The original uploaded file (with edit summary and copyright declaration) is here. Can you retrieve the information and add it to the commons image?.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This time I come with an observation, not a question. Some administrator are very wise, like you. Some are not very wise, at all. Some of these unwise ones frequent WP:ANI. Not all the admininstrators who post there lack wisdom, though.
There have been proposals for desysop. Rather than be punitive, I come to you with a positive idea.
What if there were very strict behavioural criteria written up? If one passes them, then they would receive a special certification good for a certain period of time, maybe 6 months, maybe 1 year. The criteria can be discussed. It could be utmost professionalism, politeness, knowledge, good editorial contributions and/or not engaging in any conflict of interest.
What do you think of the general idea? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello I am only posting this on your talk because I just came from User talk:Radiopathy, where I saw you had posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Radiopathy_reported_by_User:Koavf_.28Result:_.29. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Koavf continues to edit war and "UK troll" at Hollie Steel. Note that we've been given " instructions" on how he wants the article to appear. Notice also that I've put the issue out for consensus. I've reverted Koavf's change pending consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You have some more.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless there are privacy concerns, you both can post here directly instead of using email. An open process is always preferable. Abecedare ( talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Abecedare. Radiopathy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to an unblock or shortening because, the user was told at
2:16 UTC and again at
2:46 UTC by two different editors that the edits were not vandalism - and made at least 5 more reverts after that. So the unblock reason is patently false.
As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I
once more only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{
retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example
this and
this version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards.
Abecedare (
talk)
05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Although you have told me to disengage unless reporting, I feel the following should be said at his talk page, in response to his latest reply:
Thank you for your time. I have not said this yet. I also feel that if I point this out, he'll just blank it.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
What are some good sources for the Sankaracharyas? Wikidas has nominated a few for deletion, and I can't think of many search strings to find the right sources. — Spaceman Spiff 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Rudra: Thanks for the link. I haven't ever looked at this topic, so look forward to reading the pdf for my own curiosity.
Sodabottle: Definitely a concern, especially for the early Shankracharyas. The description at
kamakoti has to be treated pretty much a matter of faith, rather than a historical account. (e.g, they place
Adi Shankara in 6th c BC).
Spaceman: Haven't found anything useful yet besides the kamakoti site. Not much use in having a separate article if all we can say is "... was the 66th Shanakaracharya of the Kanchi Matha". Will keep looking, although search is complicated by the fact that the 68th Shankaracharya who served from 1907-1994 (!) was also named Chandrasekarendra Saraswati.
Abecedare (
talk)
18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) The TOI self-publicity is a hoot: "The book is a good mix of text and photographs, making it pleasing to read through even while experiencing spiritual upliftment." ... prose fit for a wikipedia article and I'm sure we'll be seeing it here soon. ;-) Abecedare ( talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored.
Here is pointwise reply to your comments
Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree
[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]
Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist. [1] [2] [3] [4] References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism , which indicates good faith in putting this most important controversial part.
NOT including this section or significant view as a part of controversy & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.
No original research policy not followed: Disagree
It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).
No reliable sourcing:Disagree
References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.
Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree
Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.
In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005) under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points , now deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.
Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. -- Jugal ( talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You deleted text again. All type of references given , you some time showing either primary sources or burning , thats why u missing other references.-- Jugal ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Propaganda Machine, Whatever Manu wrote became history, along with all criticism raised by people thorugh all means & Shudra, women.You can not revert or undo History , but i do not know how many people are going to beleive this wiki article only.What about other sources.Wiki loses its credibility because of people like you.India already lost everything because of ur ancecstors and became a 3rd world ctr. -- Jugal ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
By using another account same user reverting edits , removing views , reliable references.You can varify by last two edits 18:27, 25 February 2010, 18:27, 25 February 2010, .These edits made by same user by two diffrent account(see talk page on both user) -- Jugal ( talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the biblio at Manusmriti (and a number of other pages) this is a book by Patrick Olivelle.
Which, to say the least, is odd. How did more than one editor back in late 2008 know of and cite a book/article/whatever by a well-known scholar that seems untraceable since? rudra ( talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I know what happened: Firstly, unless I am gravely mistaken, User:Jcwent is on the up-and-up. During that time when he was editing there was a course project of UW-Madison students taking a class on Hindu Law (IIRC), who were being guided by their professor in editing wikipedia pages. I had interacted with a few of them (see this), and they did a good bit in making a few wikipedia articles in the area encyclopedic. I can imagine that the students had access to a pre-print version of the Cambridge Handbook of Law and Hinduism, ed. T. Lubin and D. Davis, which has either still not been published, or was published under a different title. Of course if the book remains unpublished, we may need to remove it, but I'd tend to trust material added by that group of editors. Abecedare ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs)