Jump to content

User talk:Barek: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Barek (talk | contribs)
Line 43: Line 43:
== edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK ==
== edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK ==


I was not aware that there was a 3-revision rule. This is a subject that has experienced extensive censorship online by the organization in question. Since 2011, any attempts to post a link to their webpage on Twitter is rejected as all of the links are marked as spam. This is a result of my talking about the literally vast array of political leaders providing material support to the FTO. From 2011 through 2013, the same links were all blocked on Facebook. Comments on news websites on related stories were routinely the subject of malicious editing and so on. Furthermore, there is a contingent of Americans online that apparently are unhappy with news of their preferred political leaders having their dirty laundry aired.
I was not aware that there was a 3-revision rule. This is a subject that has experienced extensive censorship online by the organization in question. Since 2011, any attempts to post a link to their webpage on Twitter is rejected as all of the links are marked as spam. This is a result of my talking about the literally vast array of political leaders providing material support to the FTO. From 2011 through 2013, the same links were all blocked on Facebook. Comments on news websites on related stories were routinely the subject of malicious editing and so on. Furthermore, there is a contingent of Americans online that apparently are unhappy with news of their preferred political leaders having their dirty laundry aired.

Furthermore, the organization has an extensive and active social media presence from which it attempts to control any message about itself that it finds unsatisfactory. A brief review of the Wikileak cables for the group will reveal that the group has expended literally millions of dollars buying its way off of terrorist lists around the globe and operates in what several governments, the CFR, et al have all called "a cult-like manner". However, they commit terrorist acts against Iran and are thus well supported by the American and Israeli intelligence community.


The original complaints around the additions related to the NNPOV and to politicized sources. These have been resolved and the additions have been written in a neutral manner, the references were increased and more politicized ones were removed in favor of objectively credible ones.
The original complaints around the additions related to the NNPOV and to politicized sources. These have been resolved and the additions have been written in a neutral manner, the references were increased and more politicized ones were removed in favor of objectively credible ones.

Revision as of 04:40, 28 September 2014

35px}} Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed.
Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
Notice
  • If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here - if you want a {{talkback}} notice, please request it.
  • If I left a message for you on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist and will see replies made on your talk page.
  • Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • I reserve the right at my discretion to remove uncivil comments from this page, as well as threads which are perceived by me to be disruptive.
  • My alternate talkpage can be used to contact me if Wikipedia indicates that this page is protected due to vandalism.
Please note:
This talk page is known to be monitored by talk page watchers. This means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated.
Server time (update):
August 9, 2024 20:43 (UTC)

purge cache


My talk page archives
 • 2007  • 2008  • 2009
 • 2010  • 2011  • 2012
 • 2013  • 2014  • 2015
 • 2016  • 2017  • 2018
 • 2019  • 2020  • 2021
 • 2022  • 2023  • 2024

Removal of my link: 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

To give a background, I had earlier added the following links which give additional information on the volatility index (VIX) in India published in actuarial magazine London and India.

http://www.theactuary.com/features/2014/09/a-copula-approach-to-volatility-index-in-india/ http://actuariesindia.org.in/(X(1)S(pn4o1w45w4b1kq3mxk3k2viu))/downloads/souvenir/2014/ActuaryIndiaMarch2014.pdf

As the links where added under the section "See also" for those who would be more interested in knowing VIX in India. So I am not clear why the link have been removed.

I trust the links are of great use, given the facts they had appeared in leading actuarial magazine and request you to reinstate.

Regards

Chinnaraja C — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinnarajaC Nithisa (talkcontribs) 18:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons for removal. First, you appear to have a conflict of interest, as your username is the same as the author in both of those links. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish your personal writings. As to the section where added, the see also section is for internal Wiki links, not to links to external websites. For external links, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines related to external links which can be viewed at WP:External links and WP:Not repository.
If you disagree with my interpretation of these policies and guidelines, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article(s) involved (may need to use WP:RFC process to get additional parties involved), or at WP:External links/Noticeboard to see if consensus exists in the Wikipedia community to include the links. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Life Removal

Hi

I was planning to create a wiki page of Nintendo Life with a lot of details, but it turns out that many people tried it and got their page deleted.

I am not sure how to check the deleted content but can you please state the reason behind the deletion? Is it ok for me to go ahead?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashpant (talkcontribs) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prior versions of Nintendo Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) simply state that it's a multimedia news and review website with a focus on Nintendo video games and services; one version also listed some "team members" that contributed to the site.
Unfortunately, this very superficial content did not pass Wikipedia inclusion criteria and in each case was deleted per speedy criteria WP:A7 "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant".
Even if a new version of the article were created that made a viable claim of significance or importance, it could also later be deleted if it fails to establish itself as notable. For reference, Wikipedia's definition of notability for web content can be found at WP:Notability (web) (that page is a bit wordy - the key explanation from that page for how to establish notability is in the section WP:Notability (web)#Criteria).
To create an article for the website, I would suggest developing it first either in the Drafts: namespace or in your Userspace namespace using multiple third-party reliable sources that discuss the website. Using one of the draft development option will give time to build out the article without someone tagging it for deletion before you have the article ready for the full Wikipedia community. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK

I was not aware that there was a 3-revision rule. This is a subject that has experienced extensive censorship online by the organization in question. Since 2011, any attempts to post a link to their webpage on Twitter is rejected as all of the links are marked as spam. This is a result of my talking about the literally vast array of political leaders providing material support to the FTO. From 2011 through 2013, the same links were all blocked on Facebook. Comments on news websites on related stories were routinely the subject of malicious editing and so on. Furthermore, there is a contingent of Americans online that apparently are unhappy with news of their preferred political leaders having their dirty laundry aired.

Furthermore, the organization has an extensive and active social media presence from which it attempts to control any message about itself that it finds unsatisfactory. A brief review of the Wikileak cables for the group will reveal that the group has expended literally millions of dollars buying its way off of terrorist lists around the globe and operates in what several governments, the CFR, et al have all called "a cult-like manner". However, they commit terrorist acts against Iran and are thus well supported by the American and Israeli intelligence community.

The original complaints around the additions related to the NNPOV and to politicized sources. These have been resolved and the additions have been written in a neutral manner, the references were increased and more politicized ones were removed in favor of objectively credible ones.

The removals are being made, at this point and to some degree initially with a less than honest basis; compare the revisions of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Ridge&oldid=627307247#Support_for_the_People.27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran for instance, where the 'permissible' versions used references from biased and questionable sources, but the more credible ones I utilized were removed. I do not argue that the original additions were made with a NNPOV, given the context this should be somewhat understandable. Furthermore, the original is written in a manner that itself is non-neutral and suggests that Ridge's support is political mud-slinging instead of objective fact.

The additions as they are presently are well-sourced and objective. They are largely written in a neutral manner. The removals are not occurring in a form of edits or suggestions, but outright removals. I have repeatedly modified the content to make it more acceptable, but I am afraid that to some parties any reference will be found objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.194 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, by definition, a content dispute. You need to use the individual article talk pages to resolve any content disputes. To help resolve content disputes, suggestions exist at WP:Dispute resolution on multiple options for resolving the content dispute. However, continued dispruption by edit warring will result in your account being blocked and/or the articles protected to prevent disruption. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]