Jump to content

User talk:Thisthat2011: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
warning
→‎Warning: comment
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<center><font color="#FF9933"><b> Humour ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..</b></font></center>

== Great Work!! ==
== Great Work!! ==


Line 147: Line 149:
==Warning==
==Warning==
Following my request on your talk page about disruption by continual repeating your comments, you have continued to repeat the comments so unless it concerns a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] then to keep repeating your comment will be considered disruptive and you may have your editing rights restricted. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Following my request on your talk page about disruption by continual repeating your comments, you have continued to repeat the comments so unless it concerns a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] then to keep repeating your comment will be considered disruptive and you may have your editing rights restricted. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|35px]] Despite my request not to keep repeating your points at [[Talk:India]] you have repeated them again today [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=427639897]. Although we assume good faith your continually making the same points is clearly disruptive, it may be worth reading the [[WP:RFC|Request for comment]] page for instructions if you wish to gain further views on the subject, but to keep repeating your comments will be seen as being disruptive and you may have your editing rights restricted. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

: As far as name Bharat is considered, I have pointed out with reasons from my side, instead of opposing it again and again unreasonably, and therefore not disruptive according to me. Though, I can see that apparently no weight is been given here for reasons.
: As I have pointed out on your page, the repetition is because of repeated assertions from other users. As it is, it is a talk page, not main page [[India]].<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..[[User_talk:thisthat2011 | <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011</font>]]</font> 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

::I can understand your frustration, you have a point to make and nobody is saying that you cant have a view and make suggestions to improve the article. The request to include Bharat in the lead has not been supported by a number of editors, although other editors have supported it. The default for the article is to stay the same unless you can gain a consensus on the talk page. It is not for other editors to show why it should change but for you to raise points why it should. The problem with repeating the points is that the opinion of the other editors on the talk page is not changed by repeating it, which is why it is seen as disruptive. Editors then get frustrated and it can lead to bad behaviour by other editors which we really dont want. My suggestion is that you will not get support on the talk page no matter what you say but as I am sure you believe you have a valid suggestion then it is better to get other editors involved to see if a wider audience supports your views. The best method is to create a request for comment, you can follow the instructions on the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] page, it also suggested an automated page to make it easier at [http://toolserver.org/~messedrocker/postingtool.php RfC posting tool]. What then happens is that other editors/users see the notice for comments and some of them will not have visited the India page before so will read your suggestion with no preset ideas and give an opinion one way or another. As it is a bit of a stalemate on the talk page so this will get others involved and allow you to get more comments. I appreciate that I dont agree with your suggestion but that doesnt mean you dont have the right to gain more views, if you have any questions then please ask on this page and I will try and help. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

==Talkback==
{{talkback|Fowler&fowler|ts=13:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 22:03, 5 May 2011

Humour ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..

Great Work!!

Hello, Thisthat2011! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous


I saw your recent contributions and think you are doing a great work. However, some of your edits have been out of context and may be seen as POV pushing. I would recommend you discuss with other editors on talkpage of the article if required and place references in context. I have placed a welcome link on your talkpage. Move it to the top of talkpage as it might be useful.Contact me if you need help and keep up the good work.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thisthat2011 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give link to referred topic for better understanding. Thanks. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Do not try to disparage the background of others.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to "narendra modi's mother tongue" topic then I dont consider that as personal attack. That Narendra Modi is Gujarati and talks in Gujarati is a fact as true as daylight. It just means that the user has not understood that the language is called Gujarati is all. It is acknowledged the fact that the user has another mother tongue which can be as good and culturally rich. In no sense it is disparaging.

It is still a personal attack. Instead of saying something like that, please explain to the user exactly what he/she said wrong, and cite your sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify please where I have indulged in Edit war? In two topics [Slavery] and [Alexander the great] the edits were hardly from one line or more. When edits were reverted, it was decided later that a consensus is needed and no edits are done after that. And how long could a block without notice last, considering it looks imminent? Please note that most of my edits are in talk pages and not at all currently on Wikipedia pages and still I am getting this message. Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was not familiar with edit behavior, and it has ended up with just one out of 4 edits though I was also not too familiar with source differentiation etc. Though after that has been made clear, I have not made any edits except in talk pages.Thisthat2011 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This warning is old. It was because of Slavery.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste from the internet

Please see WP:COPYRIGHT and do avoid copy/pasting large blocks of text from copyrighted sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Tibet. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to which edits this information message refers to please? Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok done. Thisthat2011 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

The issue is not the information, but the source. Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines (link to them here) do not allow user-generated sources (such as wikidot websites), nor do they allow self-published sources (such as tripod pages). I recommend looking on Google Books for a source (just make sure the publisher is not a pay-to-print publisher like Lulu.com). None of the sources in the Christianity article are from self-published sources. As you see here, I removed a spam link that would count as a self-published source if it was used as a source in the article). The authors of that article's sources had to get approval from someone else to get those books published. Self-published does not mean that the author is a Hindu, Christian, or whatever. Self-published means the author published by himself, and had noone to make sure he was publishing good material. I highly recommend studying the reliable sourcing guidelines for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this is a good source here. If this can be considered as one, do let me know please so I can make changes.Thisthat2011 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good source. The book comes from a company that specializes in academic works, so the author's work would have been scrutinized. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Please note that it is not appropriate to change disputed sections without consensus. Please continue in discussion at the talk page. Yes Michael?Talk 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sanskrit Wikipedia

You seem to be quite knowledgeable in Sanskrit. Have you considered contributing to the Sanskrit Wikipedia? Regards, Yes Michael?Talk 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to. I will see what I can do about it.सततम् कर्यम् समकर कर्म I असक्तॊ ही अकरण कर्म 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
We need knowledgeable editors like you. Hope to see you there! Yes Michael?Talk 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war? or removal of sourced content?

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You have been continuing to add personal commentary in various articles and/or sourcing dubious content to unreliable sources, please refrain from doing that.SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing me of something for which there is a sourced content. You are removing the sourced content and then accusing me of "adding personal commentary" though not a single word of the content is my own. Please desist from deleting referenced content and then accusing. It is vandalism and there is a topic in discussion board Talk:Christianity_in_India#Vandalism_in_edits_.5B.7C_here.5D_and_user_SpacemanSpiff_.5B.7C_here.5D here as well. Please mention your concerns on the discussion board...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Babri mosque. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christianity in India. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.SpacemanSpiff 07:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This goes the same for you. My content addition are well sourced. I am fine for going to noticeboard but don't deleted well-sourced content without discussion board. The links addresses tell a lot about what is mentioned in the words. I would like to escalate this for matter which is indeed well sourced. I have also mentioned where to discuss this on discussion page...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The links that you add do not qualify as WP:RS and the content you keep adding is your personal commentary. You are welcome to take it to any noticeboard you wish. —SpacemanSpiff 07:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this my personal commentary. Tell me which words. How are the links for Ashrams maintained by Christians themselves are my commentary?..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. I saw your posts at ANI and noticed that your signature does not contain any links. Per policy, you need to include a link in your signature back to your user page, usertalk page, or contributions. Please see this or contact me for assistance. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

check.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your sig consists of yellow text (difficult to see on a white background), and no Latin (English) alphabet letters, making it hard for someone looking at your sig to figure out that it's you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganges

did you know what you just did there. i believe you owe an apology to Pfly. --CarTick (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I never know things can go out of way so suddenly. I actually put my understanding before apology, hope it helps...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Banking in Switzerland do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some links.

Temple architechture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_temple_architecture

List of noticeboards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems that discussion for Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 is not going anywhere, not because of consensus, but because of no consensus is claimed, in spite of 3 different users saying so. The reasons are given and are finally replies are a new question: Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? ... , I think you have answered your own question! ... For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page... and so on; In spite of giving reasons. So I would like to know where are the ironclad rules for first line of an organization? Where is the rule that usual principles can not be extended to first line of an organization? I would request to set a standard for organizations and as such. Also I would like to know what to do in cases where in the name of consensus, no effort is made to form a consensus but all efforts are made just to claim no consensus, a similar behavior is noticed here also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#No_consensus_in_the_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_for_India_also_Bharat.

.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) :: Can someone give a list of things to do for this matter to request an arbitration please? Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thisthat2011. I'm a clerk for the Arbitration Committee and have moved your post here as it was in the wrong place.
ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes, and this appears to be a content dispute. You've got several options but you need to only use one at a time. If you think that this is primarily a BLP issue, you can go to the WP:BLPN and raise your concerns there. If you think it is a sourcing issue, we have WP:RSN. It occurs to me that there may be NPOV problems and we have WP:NPOVN for discussing those.
We also have dispute resolution venues WP:DR.
Another suggestion would be to raise a request for comment on the issue - see WP:RFC concerning where text should be placed.
It's up to you to decide what you want to do. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Following my request on your talk page about disruption by continual repeating your comments, you have continued to repeat the comments so unless it concerns a request for comment then to keep repeating your comment will be considered disruptive and you may have your editing rights restricted. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my request not to keep repeating your points at Talk:India you have repeated them again today [2]. Although we assume good faith your continually making the same points is clearly disruptive, it may be worth reading the Request for comment page for instructions if you wish to gain further views on the subject, but to keep repeating your comments will be seen as being disruptive and you may have your editing rights restricted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as name Bharat is considered, I have pointed out with reasons from my side, instead of opposing it again and again unreasonably, and therefore not disruptive according to me. Though, I can see that apparently no weight is been given here for reasons.
As I have pointed out on your page, the repetition is because of repeated assertions from other users. As it is, it is a talk page, not main page India. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration, you have a point to make and nobody is saying that you cant have a view and make suggestions to improve the article. The request to include Bharat in the lead has not been supported by a number of editors, although other editors have supported it. The default for the article is to stay the same unless you can gain a consensus on the talk page. It is not for other editors to show why it should change but for you to raise points why it should. The problem with repeating the points is that the opinion of the other editors on the talk page is not changed by repeating it, which is why it is seen as disruptive. Editors then get frustrated and it can lead to bad behaviour by other editors which we really dont want. My suggestion is that you will not get support on the talk page no matter what you say but as I am sure you believe you have a valid suggestion then it is better to get other editors involved to see if a wider audience supports your views. The best method is to create a request for comment, you can follow the instructions on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page, it also suggested an automated page to make it easier at RfC posting tool. What then happens is that other editors/users see the notice for comments and some of them will not have visited the India page before so will read your suggestion with no preset ideas and give an opinion one way or another. As it is a bit of a stalemate on the talk page so this will get others involved and allow you to get more comments. I appreciate that I dont agree with your suggestion but that doesnt mean you dont have the right to gain more views, if you have any questions then please ask on this page and I will try and help. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thisthat2011. You have new messages at Fowler&fowler's talk page.
Message added 13:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]