User talk:D4iNa4

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Era changes

Although it is my personal opinion that the article should use BCE, we need to follow the guidelines at WP:ERA so I have reverted you. I wouldn't expect you to know these guidelines existed, of course. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

I am unsure what axe you are trying to grind here, but you really need to read the TP archives for that page. The exact text you are removing has been discussed before, and consensus was to keep it. Jaffrelot explicitly says Modi's "development" only benefited the rich, and that education, health, and so forth (which is human development, as the phrase is used in sociological circles) has been neglected. If you do not believe me, please re-read the paper. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Narendra Modi. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I did 1 or 2 revert, not really 3. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On establishing notability for books

Hi D4iNa4,

So like any other large, scholarly community, we have our own lingo here. We use the word notability here as a term of art. It does not mean that something in interesting, or important, or worthy, or even correct. All it means is that other people have written enough about the topic so that we can summarize those writings into an article.

There are a few more nuances: the writing must be independent of the topic of the article (so the author writing about her own book wouldn't count) and the writing must (usually) occur in a forum where there is third-party editorial control (newspapers and magazines are great, blogs (mostly) aren't).

For books, this means finding multiple book reviews: long articles that discuss the contents of the book and its place in the wider world. If those book reviews haven't been written, then—in the wikipedia sense of the word—the book is not notable.

All of this has been spelled out in great detail at WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and WP:NBOOK. If you're going to participate at AfD, it's expected that you have read and understood those policies and essays. It's not pleasant for us to keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, and I expect it isn't too pleasant for you, either. Spend a few hours studying the rules of the road and things should go a lot smoother.

If you want to see how AfDs should work (at least in my opinion), take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature in the Cell. I found three reviews of a book that was proposed for deletion, presented them in a format that allowed easy checking, and asked for feedback. One editor didn't think that was enough, so I tracked down five more reviews. I didn't bring up the fact that the book is interesting or the author is famous, or that lots of bloggers reviewed the book: while true, those aren't relevant to the issue at hand.

Anyway, most folks hit a rough patch or two when they first start editing. Spend some time with the instruction manuals and your time here will be a lot more fun.

Looking forward to working with you in the future,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and WP:NBOOK. But when you see that the books have a well over of 20,000 results, 1,000s of mentions, you can believe that they would pass the above guidelines. After all, these pages have been here for 5 years or more. It can be said that thousands of other editors would've thought about them, whether they are required to have their page in wikipedia or not. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't find any reviews, I can't find any reviews, the original author of the article couldn't find any and none of the dozens of editors who have looked at the page in the past five years could find any. Maybe the reviews just aren't there, and google hits are a poor guide to notability. Just a thought.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 

Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)