TBA
Hi StuffandTruth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hello - assuming you're new here and not a seasoned editor starting a new account, welcome aboard! Just to let you know I reverted one of your edits on this article for reasons I explain on the talk page there. If you have reason to believe I have made a mistake, do please present your case there. If there's any other matter (outside the article) you would like to raise or ask about, feel free to post on my talk page. All best, Alfietucker ( talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alfietucker ( talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason= I don't understand why I've been blocked? I received no warning on a block, no check user process, '''nothing''', yet I've been blocked by an admin who I have ''never'' had contact with for these very reasons. The admin who blocked me was [[user:Salvio giuliano]]. Please ask him why he's blocked me '''without''' warning, and '''without''' due process, for checking which sockpuppet I belong to - because I only, really, have one account - I don't know who's account he's accusing me of having links with. Are administrators even allowed to "checkuser" users random? Because I am sure they are not. [[User:StuffandTruth|StuffandTruth]] ([[User talk:StuffandTruth#top|talk]]) 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)}}
I assume it was through carelessness, but your comment here effectively accused me of tendentious editing. This was wholly unjustified, and as this is not the first time you have done this (again without justification), I hope you will be good enough to apologise for this. Alfietucker ( talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I inadvertently removed your edit when deleting something else. Czolgolz ( talk) 19:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's fine. StuffandTruth ( talk) 12:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not mandated in Hinduism, it's the part of society, rather than it's the part of religion, nor it's limited with the Indian society, but prevalent in other regions of the world. Sati (practice) is not a part of criticism either, since it was done on purpose, not implied/restricted by the religion. Bladesmulti ( talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, it is no more a point whether he is historian or not. Or that he can be used as source or not.
Bigger point is:-
Once they are cleared, further changes will be made to Persecution of Hindus. Relax. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, kudos to you for persisting in the face of incredibly blinkered and idiotic arguments. I had a similar fight with BM a few days ago, as you must have noticed. The only thing is, despite your insertion of Digby, I still feel upon reading the article today that it is a severe case of WP:UNDUE in terms of the weightage given to the borderline Islamophobic sources. I would liek to clean it up, but while we work on that I think the POV tag should remain. What do you think? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
S&T, even if it turns out that Lal is referring to Hindus, I have some concerns about
Therefore, I feel the source should be removed. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess I'm overthinking it. It probably better belongs on some other page of which I will include it in. StuffandTruth ( talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I am fine with that. Fair is fair. I just thought I could revert if he was edit warring ie trying to stop the publication of a reliable source on Wikipedia. StuffandTruth ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there! I have added a "small" discussion on the spread of sati on Death by burning and a more detailed one on Sati (practice), as discussed by Yang. If you wish to make a few comments on this before you have regained normal status, I think you are allowed to do so here at your own talk page. Arildnordby ( talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong on your suspicions of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
TBA
Hi StuffandTruth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hello - assuming you're new here and not a seasoned editor starting a new account, welcome aboard! Just to let you know I reverted one of your edits on this article for reasons I explain on the talk page there. If you have reason to believe I have made a mistake, do please present your case there. If there's any other matter (outside the article) you would like to raise or ask about, feel free to post on my talk page. All best, Alfietucker ( talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alfietucker ( talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason= I don't understand why I've been blocked? I received no warning on a block, no check user process, '''nothing''', yet I've been blocked by an admin who I have ''never'' had contact with for these very reasons. The admin who blocked me was [[user:Salvio giuliano]]. Please ask him why he's blocked me '''without''' warning, and '''without''' due process, for checking which sockpuppet I belong to - because I only, really, have one account - I don't know who's account he's accusing me of having links with. Are administrators even allowed to "checkuser" users random? Because I am sure they are not. [[User:StuffandTruth|StuffandTruth]] ([[User talk:StuffandTruth#top|talk]]) 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)}}
I assume it was through carelessness, but your comment here effectively accused me of tendentious editing. This was wholly unjustified, and as this is not the first time you have done this (again without justification), I hope you will be good enough to apologise for this. Alfietucker ( talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I inadvertently removed your edit when deleting something else. Czolgolz ( talk) 19:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's fine. StuffandTruth ( talk) 12:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not mandated in Hinduism, it's the part of society, rather than it's the part of religion, nor it's limited with the Indian society, but prevalent in other regions of the world. Sati (practice) is not a part of criticism either, since it was done on purpose, not implied/restricted by the religion. Bladesmulti ( talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, it is no more a point whether he is historian or not. Or that he can be used as source or not.
Bigger point is:-
Once they are cleared, further changes will be made to Persecution of Hindus. Relax. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, kudos to you for persisting in the face of incredibly blinkered and idiotic arguments. I had a similar fight with BM a few days ago, as you must have noticed. The only thing is, despite your insertion of Digby, I still feel upon reading the article today that it is a severe case of WP:UNDUE in terms of the weightage given to the borderline Islamophobic sources. I would liek to clean it up, but while we work on that I think the POV tag should remain. What do you think? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
S&T, even if it turns out that Lal is referring to Hindus, I have some concerns about
Therefore, I feel the source should be removed. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess I'm overthinking it. It probably better belongs on some other page of which I will include it in. StuffandTruth ( talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I am fine with that. Fair is fair. I just thought I could revert if he was edit warring ie trying to stop the publication of a reliable source on Wikipedia. StuffandTruth ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there! I have added a "small" discussion on the spread of sati on Death by burning and a more detailed one on Sati (practice), as discussed by Yang. If you wish to make a few comments on this before you have regained normal status, I think you are allowed to do so here at your own talk page. Arildnordby ( talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong on your suspicions of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)