User talk:Noq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your edit of my Rugby World Cup contribution[edit]

Why are you insisting on having these exaggerated audience figures from the RWC, which come from non-independent sources? These figures are not trustworthy, they come from studies ordered by the IRB. Deloitte was paid by the IRB. You say your reasons for removing the edit is the absence of sources, but I quoted an article from a reputable NZ newspaper which makes a very good case for it. You cut the source reference. You also removed the 97 percent figure despite the fact that it comes from an IRB report.SD3107E (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Qadian[edit]

What is wrong in this

Every time you delete this from the page

This is true that city was founded by Ahemdiya Muslims But That's not Truth that Arya Samaj and Lek Ram has not played the Significance Role in the History Of Qadian

So Please don't delete these Information's the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SN Pushkarna (talkcontribs) 10:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You should calm down and read WP:BRD. Several editors have reverted your edit not just me. You have also been blocked from editing for a period for repeatedly putting the same edit in. As the edit summaries have explained, you are adding unsupported claims and unnecessary detail. The appropriate place to discuss this is the articles talk page, were you can try to get a consensus for your version - rather than trying to steamroller it through which is not working. Wikipedia is about WP:verifiability not Truth. noq (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Qadian

What is wrong in this

Every time you delete this from the page

This is true that city was founded by Ahemdiya Muslims But That's not Truth that Arya Samaj and Lek Ram has not played the Significance Role in the History Of Qadian

So Please don't delete these Information's from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SN Pushkarna (talkcontribs) 10:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly overwriting other peoples comments with copies of the same plea does nothing to help your cause. You need to seek consensus on the articles talk page rather than WP:edit warring. You have been blocked once for this behaviour and are rapidly getting to the point where you will be blocked again. Please stop, read the links given and don't just automatically dismiss what everyone else is telling you. noq (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you want hide Pandit lek Ram and Arya Samaj History from qadian Page is it not ture that that Dav institutes are working in qadian under the Guidelines of Arya Samaj

Are they not the citizen of Qadian

are the Muslim are the only citizens of qadian

Please revert on the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SN Pushkarna (talkcontribs) 10:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I 'm answer the Objection still No body is listing me

Why are you want hide Pandit lek Ram and Arya Samaj History from qadian Page is it not ture that that Dav institutes are working in qadian under the Guidelines of Arya Samaj

Are they not the citizen of Qadian

are the Muslim are the only citizens of qadian

Please revert on the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SN Pushkarna (talkcontribs) 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I gave this person another temporary block, although I'm not sure that was the right call. Hopefully, they will justify my giving them another chance. I'm watching their page and the article, but please note that I've warned them that if they return to this behavior their next block may come without warning. If you need to reach out to any other admin because stuff is happening that isn't noticed, please feel free to point that warning out. Thanks for your patience. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. They are attempting to appeal the block at the moment but I don't think that is likely to be successful. noq (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Me, either. If anything, some admin is likely to take me up on my offer to extend the block. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)




now what the wrong i have written ?

if the pandit lek is the fake person ,i have admitted the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by SN Pushkarna (talkcontribs) 06:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now what the wrong i have written ,just followed you and agreed your writing on the page

You have not followed me at all - you have petulantly added sarcastic comments to the article that do not contribute to an encyclopaedia article in any way. You are still pushing your own unsourced view with the addition of saying its not true - it does not belong there. It is precisely that behaviour that got you blocked and despite several people trying to explain to you why there is a problem you still do not understand and persist in claiming it has something to do with Muslims trying to stop you spreading the "truth". noq (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel[edit]

Hi Noq, while I agree with you in principle, I find it curious that gojerusalem.com which is not really any different is allowed to remain. I don't work for Eggedtours, but to me as an Israeli, the Egged brand is synonymous with transportation in Israel as well as tours/tourism (I always recommend them to friends etc. who come visiting from abroad). GoJerusalem.com is a website I've never heard of, despite having lived in Jerusalem for years and having visited countless times. Sorry this got long, but I don't get the rationale for your edit if gojerusalem.com is "kosher". Please explain the difference to me. Cheers! Avielfahl (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not see the gojerusalem.com link and have now removed it. Lots of Wiki articles have inappropriate links and just because one already exists does not mean adding another is a good idea. noq (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I apologize for my mistake. I'm still new to this and I thought it was useful. I will not try to re-add it and I will think more carefully next time.Avielfahl (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AT Internet[edit]

Dear Nod, This AT Internet page that you just reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_Internet) is old and outdated, the names of the key people have changed. I think it is one of the objectives of Wikipedia to provide visitors with correct content, so I do not understand why you refuse any change. I will rework our presentation sentence so that it sounds less marketing-oriented to you and hope it will be fine. Regards, Marie from the online team.

EquipeOnline (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)EquipeOnline

Please read WP:COI - if you work for or on behalf of the company please resist the temptation to re-write the article. This is an encyclopaedia and not a business directory. I suggest that making specific suggestions on the articles talk page here highlighting areas you believe to be incorrect rather than directly editing yourself. noq (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kate Bush birthplace[edit]

Hi Noq,

I see you reverted my change regarding the birthplace of Kate Bush. I agree that the register of her birth shows Sidcup, but that is the registration district, NOT her place of birth. She was born in Bexleyheath Maternity Hospital, as several biographies confirm; Bexleyheath is a small town in Kent (by postcode) or London (by local government), and it is a few miles from Sidcup, which is a different town also in Kent/London. Howevr, Sidcup is where there births registration district was based at the time of Kate's birth. Neverthless, geographically it is incorrect to say she was born in Sidcup, she was born in Bexleyheath. I live in the area myself ad know this to be the case. Regards, Neilinely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinely (talkcontribs) 12:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We need a WP:reliable source that says Bexleyheath and that needs to be cited in the article - until that is there, the change cannot stand. noq (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are just a few, including Wikipedia! I say again, the registration district in which someone's birth is registered is NOT the same as their place of birth - it is just the place where the birth is registered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bexleyheath

http://www.bexleyheath.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/641/kate-bush/ http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/katebush/Biog.html http://www.katebushnews.com/index.php/leaving-her-tracks/ Under the Ivy (Graeme Thomson) (ISBN 9781780381466) http://gaffa.org/garden/chrono.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/11182736/Kate-Bushs-London-house-is-for-sale.html http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11435964.Welling_s_Kate_Bush_hailed_after_first_live_performance_for_35_years/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinely (talkcontribs) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:reliable source. towntalk, angelfire and gaffa.org are not reliable either. The Telegraph and Argus describes here birthplace as Welling. This conflicts with the Telegraph article. noq (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism[edit]

Hello, some time ago a change I had added to this topic was reverted, suggesting that it seemed irrelevant. I had thought the article was appropriate because in it Bhaktivinoda explains that the various schools that make up 'Hinduism' are actually simply phases of the soul's evolution toward the ultimate perfection of their relationship with God. He points out that these phases are important and essential as the soul advances toward perfection. He not only reveals that these various generic paths are delineated in the Vedic scriptures, but that they are also found throughout the world in various religious schools.

If anywhere, this is perhaps the only treatise that actually gives meaning to the word 'Hinduism', which is of course not any one religion, but simply a derogatory word used by ancient foreigners on the other side of the Sindhu River - i.e. they referred to all the people on the other side of the river as 'Sindhus' which became Hindus due to the lack of an SSSS sound in their languages. Thus the various religions of India became lumped together for no real rational reason. One might logically divide them by scripture: i.e. the Vedic traditions, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the Jains. The Vedic schools that evolved are essentially just different understandings or stages of understandings of the Vedic scriptures which each school hold as Absolute.

The reference added to Wiki by the Thakura simply showed that these various schools and paths are required, but essentially they are all ONE, like paths or gears on the way to the perfection of existence. This is a very important message for mankind, if they can ever get beyond their own favorite idioms in their own favorite books, get beyond to the essence who stands behind each school, that most famous One we all call God.

http://causeofallcauses.com/NonsectarianReligion.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitanya108 (talkcontribs) 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)