User talk:SpacemanSpiff: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:37, 24 January 2011

Due to RL needs, SpacemanSpiff is going to be off-wiki for a while. I'll try to check online every few days, but if there's any admin action of mine that needs change/reversion, any uninvolved admin can feel free to do so without waiting for a response from me.

Leave me a message.

Oops!

Oops! Sorry....i thought th link to ta main articls vanished....it was my fault...thanks for reverting :) regards parll's sun

Re: Disruptive edits.

Hi fellow editor, I have noticed this editor seems to have particular WP:POV when it comes to his edits. I have tried to reason with him and it doesn't seeem to work. Any ideas? Thanks--Sikh-History 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a couple of editors have started some discussion with him currently, let's see if that helps. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh-history is unnecessarily reverting my constructive edits without any discussion and is trying to push his WP:POV, I have mentioned the reasons for my edits but he reverts them just because "he thinks" they are not correct.Winston786 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, you are making unsourced changes and he is correctly reverting them. You may be right, but Wikipedia content should be verifiable and the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Please read through WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR as they will be helpful in your editing. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fellow editor, please give your views here on what is happenning at Jatt Sikh. I have removed an incorrect refernce. See what you think. Also there seems to be a misuse of warning templates on mt talk page as in here. Would you please take a look. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh-history has again reverted my sourced edits on Jatt Sikh page(here) and is adding his adding is unsourced POV(here) the warning templates have been put on his talk page to warn him from making unconstructive edits, he is not providing any source for his edits.Winston786 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but your edits are similar to the WP:POV of this fellow. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha funny one, I also love GGM, nice show though ur joke is not fitting in the situation and is like a ploy to deviate attention. you just accepted whatever I said and still reverted it back coz u didn't like it...that means you are pushing ur WP:POV. Winston786 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but I don't think you have understood what WP:POV is or what WP:Manual of Style is. I can maybe suggest WP:Arbitration. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand all of them.Winston786 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do then why are your citations so poorly included? Thanks--Sikh-History 11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HALO

External Links: removed from Nirnayam - please remove external links from UDAY KIRANS ARTICLE ALSO ?? WHAT RU DOING SLEEPING WHEN PEOPLE ADD YOU TUBE VIDEOS IN OTHER ARTICLES)

please dont make genuine editors a constant victims of over vigilance Charmee3Apples (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

And you are User:Babyboy33 and User:Padmalakshmisx? —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which: when you're done with the above three editors, the next SPI is also yours, also from the history of Uday Kiran--AnuP and Bhavana. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I don't have time to set up an SPI now, I'll ask Bollyjeff as he's the one that brought up the initial two. I'll block and tackle if needed, but this isn't my area to get involved in. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I filed the SPI on User:Padmalakshmisx for the other two accounts, hopefully I did it right. BollyJeff || talk 14:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep a watch on that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU showed these and a few other accounts were same user. Now if the user's MO is: create account, use for a few days, create another account, what can be done about that? BollyJeff || talk 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you see reappearances, just add to recreate the SPI (the current page will be archived) and they'll be blocked along with other socks once confirmed. If it passes WP:DUCK, I (or any other admin) can take care of them, but doing the SPI will still be helpful to get rid of sleepers in one go. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ur op

I added this text in Mudugar article now i am confused if the Dina Mani article discusses about this community. --CarTick (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. But shouldn't the article include Coimbatore district instead of Cuddalore district? After all, a population can't be in three bordering districts and one at the other end of the state? —SpacemanSpiff 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good point. --CarTick (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading now, I think the Dinamani article is right on -- the Coimbatore to Cuddalore change must've either been a typo or vandalism, everything else flows. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gounder

Socks are reverting back Kanatonian (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected and blocked PONDHEEPANKAR, nothing more I can do. The references in that section and the text appear to be standard for him -- ref bombing so that no one looks, but not supportive of the text. Suggest talk page discussion if anything new happens. —SpacemanSpiff 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section beyond usage should be merged with Kongu Vellalar, I've opened a talk page to discuss the tags. Kanatonian (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

people ar removing maintenance tags, what can we do ? Kanatonian (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time over the next few days, but I'm "involved" with Sybergod, can't take any action there. However, he is prone to do things as he likes it without any concern for policy, reliable sources or simple encyclopaedic writing. A cross post to WT:INB might not be bad as it can attract some neutral editors. —SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kongu Nadu.jpeg

Just curious — why did you tag this for F3 speedy deletion? The permissions template, {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, is a standard permissions template, and it's included in the "Free images" section of Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, this appears to have been a brain dead moment. I normally have a few images open and possibly tagged the wrong one, but I went to the user's talk page twice after that, so I can't imagine why I didn't catch that I tagged the wrong image. Thanks for catching it! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini Yoga page

You are just not answering the question. It's like going backwards talking to you, but I'll try again... 1) Put your reading glasses on - there is no other mention of the main teacher, master and school of kundalini yoga in this article.. although there certainly should be, right? 2) how do you reconcile this page with the karma yoga page? and 3) Being that there is a huge section of people who practice Kundalini yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan, and they all call it "Kundalini yoga", then where IS the place for it in general as encyclopedic article? And finally, although this is redundant.. 4) Exactly why should this article NOT mention Yogi Bhajan in the header if that's how Kundalini Yoga teachings are popularly, and primarily recognized - being cited from every major source from the US Government [1] to other huge yoga teachers, and all sorts of other primary sources (plus a million google pages)? Sorry that I have to treat you like a child, but since you avoid it all before, please kindly answer each question fully and properly. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehji, you've been answered exactly those questions before, including a warning at ANI in the past, you've just decided to use new socks since then, so no point in continuing the discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh? Um... where are these questions answered?? You have never answered them, nor has anyone else. And you are full of it... I have not used any "socks". Sometimes I forget to sign in, but the IPs match, so I'm not hiding anything... Again, you are just acting like a rouge police... Not answering questions that are perfectly legitimate... because you feel like you are above them or something? Sounds a lot like fascism. If they are simple answers, just answer them now. Show your kind side, and "humor me". 66.65.62.138 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC) . There... RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually do you even read this stuff, or do you just knee-jerk delete anything I do? You probably didn't even read the sentence it was contained in before deleting the last post on KY. I get your game. It's cute. Avoid answering anything, reading anything, and then report me when I make changes. How convenient. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you have a conflict of interest... Are you a Hindu? RogerThatOne72 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian states

Three examples of usage in The Imperial Gazetteer of India

If you object to have all states as XXX State, maybe at least you could vote on these. The latter two have misinformed oppose votes, which would maybe stop a move of these. TopoChecker (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of India

You are not even discussing what has to be deleted, I have added all the sourced material, nothing made up or fiction, all verified facts crucial to history. Religious adjectives are already there including the section u deleted my material from.Winston786 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done no such thing. You keep adding your POV everywhere, don't discuss, keep reverting. You haven't added a single source anywhere either. —SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of it is POV? and hyperlinks are there to take the reader to the page regarding related to information.Winston786 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works here, you've been told that many times. If you don't start following policies, you're likely to be blocked soon. —SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me, which part of it is POV and made up and i will happily revert it myself.Winston786 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told many times to add sources for anything you add, yet you don't. You've been told that religious tags shouldn't just be bandied about but yet you keep doing the same thing. Sorry, but this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the hyperlinks, which are source in a way. Religious tags are added coz India has a multi religious history, and religion plays an important part in telling it.Winston786 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:35, 24 January 2011 edit SpacemanSpiff (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 53,519 edits →‎History of India: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:37, 24 January 2011 edit undo Winston786 (talk \| contribs) 972 edits →‎History of India Next edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:

	:You've been told many times to add sources for anything you add, yet you don't. You've been told that religious tags shouldn't just be bandied about but yet you keep doing the same thing. Sorry, but this is a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue. —[[User:SpacemanSpiff\|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff\|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)		:You've been told many times to add sources for anything you add, yet you don't. You've been told that religious tags shouldn't just be bandied about but yet you keep doing the same thing. Sorry, but this is a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue. —[[User:SpacemanSpiff\|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff\|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

			I have provided the hyperlinks, which are source in a way. Religious tags are added coz India has a multi religious history, and religion plays an important part in telling it.[[User:Winston786\|Winston786]] ([[User talk:Winston786\|talk]]) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)