- 1 Talkback
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for September 25
- 3 Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Hrihr/Varman dynasty of bengal (February 1)
- 4 Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Hrihr/Varman dynasty of bengal (February 3)
- 5 Please be aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized for India-related articles
- 6 Question-and-answer re the above notification, moved from my talkpage
- 7 Nomination of List of vedic astrology software for deletion
- 8 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Varman dynasty of bengal concern
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaitu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faridkot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Hrihr/Varman dynasty of bengal (February 1)
Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Hrihr/Varman dynasty of bengal (February 3)
|Please carefully read this information:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Question-and-answer re the above notification, moved from my talkpage
I didn't understand the need, context and purpose of your message left on my talk page. Was it due to some mistake or was it intentional? Please clarify.Hrihr (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad you asked. Certainly it was intentional, I'm not some malfunctioning bot. The reason I wanted to alert you to the discretionary sanctions authorized for pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan was that I watch Joshua Jonathan's page and I noticed your post on it. I didn't like it much. You're not a new user; even though you haven't edited copiously, you've been here since 2011, and I'd hope you'd know better than to baselessly accuse people of "bias", and especially know better than to write "you better focus on Abrahimic religions and left these Indian topics to Indians as we Indians are more knowledgeable about our culture and faith. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to push your Abrahimic POV on others." No, you don't get to shut out other editors from articles on the basis of their ethnicity or religion. In fact you shouldn't even mention a fellow editor's ethnicity or religion. One of the most central civility principles on Wikipedia is that you're not supposed to make personal remarks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That's a quote from the lead section to the important No personal attacks policy. Please review it if you're not already familiar with it.
- Also, seeing your edits to Indian religions, where you added some text to the very first sentence, then had it reverted with an explanatory summary by JJ, and then re-reverted him, I'd like to draw your attention to the essay BRD. I don't really blame you for not being familiar with that essay, but the fact is it's widely accepted on Wikipedia. BRD stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss: meaning, feel free to edit boldly, but, if you're reverted do not re-revert; instead start a discussion on the talkpage, and attempt to gain consensus for your version. (Note, open discussions on the article talkpage, where other editors can see it and take part; not on the reverting editor's personal talkpage.)
- So those are the reasons I thought you'd better be aware that Indian topics are hot topics on Wikipedia, and that admins tend to be proactive to keep the related articles from being disrupted. I'm an uninvolved admin, and I thought you should be aware that admins can sanction you if you should edit inappropriately in connection with India-related articles on any page (that includes user talkpages). If you click on the link (in my original message) to the Arbitration Committee's decision about India-related articles — this link — you'll get a bit of background with regard to the problems plaguing these articles.
- (I'll move this question-and-answer to your own talkpage; it would be more convenient to keep any further conversation there.) Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
- Well, thanks for your concern. I'm Wikipedian for 8 years since 2006 and I am editing wiki entries since then using dozens of accounts and yes this account is there since 2011. The first thing I want to assure you that as having long history with Wiki, I'm quite familiar with wiki polices like BRD and how other things in wiki works! I appreciate the editors interest in Dharmic religions but I've in depth first hand knowledge about this faith system like many other native people. I'm really glad that the editor wants to contribute but as a person interested in learning about Dharmic religion, his contributions should have been limited to adding more information rather than pushing his POV. I've met many western people who come to India to know about the faiths here and I'm quite familiar with their knowledge about our religions too. So based on my experience only, I've made the edit. So as you are admin himself and also would be having good experience about these thing then I believe that you could understand the situation and talk to the editor and ask him to revert his edit gracefully. Hrihr (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's a little unexpected to see you first go counter to BRD and then state that you know all about it, but I hope it won't happen again. I understand that you know your own culture, but Wikipedia pages need to be written from reliable sources only, not personal knowledge. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, nobody can prove their credentials here, and it simply wouldn't work to have the varying and often contradictory "in depth first hand knowledge" possessed by different people duking it out on the controversial pages. (Exactly that happens a lot on caste-related pages, and it tends to make them a mess.) Reliable and checkable sources, that's the name of the game, and it would be counter to basic Wikipedia principles for you to try to limit other editors' participation based on your experience, and on what you assume their experience is. Have a read of WP:OWN while you're about it.
- The "dozens of accounts" does sound a little alarming. It's not necessary to reveal any accounts you may have had before 2011 unless you want to, but have you used any accounts other than Hrihr since you started using that one? Are you familiar with the sockpuppet policy? Bishonen | talk 12:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
- I'm replying late due to some reasons. Well, I must say that the nexus of some admins and users is enough to discourage normal users to refrain from contributing anything to Wikipedia who doesn't adhere to their agenda. I kind of found that whenever there is nothing substantial or relevant to say on the topic then certain people tend to deviate the topic by refereeing different Wikipedia policies. I'm not accusing you or someone in particular but that has unfortunately become a sort of norm on Wikipedia. As for as my edits on Dharmic religions page is concerned then I'm still firm on my stand that I along with many other users have mentioned enough references and sources to back our edits but how could that make any difference when some users' sole purpose is to impose their agenda on others. As an old user of Wikipedia, this fact is not hidden from me that gradually Wikipedia is becoming a source of propaganda backed by admins who are influenced through various means by certain activists or leaders. I'm not talking about you but in general. Someone has again made the same change that I made and may the the User:Joshua Jonathan is yet no aware of it and maybe he wants to quickly revert it. Unfortunately this trend is only discouraging many common users like me to make any contribution to Wikipedia and this I feel is alarming in long run as it will make Wikipedia more biased if only older people POV are given prime importance and any different views are shamelessly reverted and rejecting and questioned. Regarding your useless discussion on multiple accounts, I just feel it suffice to say that I had many accounts due to many reasons like not having personal computer and other security reasons and it is best if we tend to believe that not all users here have the same purpose of deceiving as sometimes to try to see the world according to our true self and I don't want to talk more on that as I believe that it is best if we stick to our original topic. So according to me, it is best if you yourself go through all the sources and check if some users here are being biased or not and if the edit I made was authentic and backed with right and worthy sources. Regards, Hrihr (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again, Hrir. You have insisted that you're quite familiar with Wiki policies, so you should be aware that personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are not allowed here. I'm referring to your post above, and even more emphatically to your recent post on Talk:Indian religions. It generally seems to affront you when I mention a policy, but I make no apology for asking you to click on those two and read them: No personal attacks and Assume good faith. They're very central policies for the interaction between users, and you keep violating them. Comment on content, not on the contributors; don't discuss editors' motives. You always seem to think their motives are bad. What you think is your affair, but if you persist in poisoning the atmosphere at this project with rants about how "Wikipedia has become a tool of propaganda where some people tirelessly try to impose their views on others especially with the help of administrators who always shamelessly favor those users who push their agenda", etc, I will block you from editing. Please review WP:CIVIL. If that's yet another "link which you'll find largely useless", please consider that editing here is a privilege, not a right, and that the project can and will exclude those who despise its rules.
- Finally, as familiar as you may or may not be with Wikipedia policy and practice, you don't seem to understand the role of administrators when you ask me to go through the sources. I haven't edited the article, and I'm not familiar with the subject nor the sources. In fact, if I had edited the article, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk of blocking you. I edit some articles, but not this one; here I'm merely the admin, which means I'm concerned with user conduct. I'm not prepared to become involved in content disputes. Please try to have a reasonable discussion about content with the knowledgeable users that you're so suspicious of; not with me. Reply to them with facts, not generalised accusations, and try to keep a reasonably pleasant tone. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Nomination of List of vedic astrology software for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of vedic astrology software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vedic astrology software until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jayakumar RG (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Varman dynasty of bengal, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.