User talk:Lindamd90

Welcome!

Hello, Lindamd90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadar (caste)

Content in articles must be verifiable as having been published in relaible sources. Please do not return content that is just claims made by wikipedia editors without proper identification of where the claims have been made. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the page should remain as it is. Perhaps citation needed tags may suffice. But deleting it completely will always be regarded as vandalinsm. I am not new to wiki. Thanks!

The contents had been flagged since ~~January~~February, and our policy does indeed allow unflagged content to be removed at any time. WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Please revert your recent edit to Nadar (caste). Not only are you working towards being blocked for violation of our edit war policy, returning unsourced content that to articles is in and of itself disruptive behavior / vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are commiting vandalism. Not i??Lindamd90 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the return of challenged material without providing a reliable source is vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war was started by you. This page was edited by senior editors like "Like I care". So i think they know better than you. Moreever u cant change the page like you want. And I think you are someone against this page. You should stop now.Lindamd90 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"he started it" "no he did" "nuh uh" "uh huh" - Who started it is irrelevant as far as edit wars go. Rolling back to the same version 3 times will get you blocked. The exception is for edits that remove vandalism. Removing unsourced content is not vandalism. Replacing unsourced content is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are blabbering. But I could only say that you wont succeed by removing almost the whole article as you want. The links are quite appropriate as far as i know. You don't sound like a neutral person and your claims are aggressive. I think you are just trying to spoil this article because you are against it. The editors I just mentioned are very neutral unlike you. Be my guest and try.Lindamd90 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The links are quite appropriate as far as i know" - well, you should read WP:RS and WP:EL and you will quickly realize that you are wrong because [www.nadar.kuttyjapan.com|this] is a self published source and not a reliable source and wikipedia articles should not link there and cannot use that site to verify content.

And please do not make claims about my motives, we have guidelines that promote civil conduct and that is why I have asked you nicely to revert your edit that returned unsourced content to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a look at the article's discussion page. And you ll find out this is a unique case. This article is still under discussion. If you are just going to edit this page like you want to, there is gonna be trouble. The claims from this article are not completely untrue. Maybe partially untrue but not completely. As I said perhaps the citation needed tag would suffice. Removing the article completely will just promote new problems. Wiki gives time to editors to edit articles. The tag weasel words exists for this purpose. So you dont have to reduce the article because the article already carries a tag regarding this issue. This is why the article remains as it is. It is actually waiting for appro refs. I still strongly claim that you are being a little too persistent in editing a caste article. Please be patient. Refer the discussion page. I ll search the refs for this article and for the other tamil caste articles myself. Thanks fr your time.Lindamd90 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been tagged for 6 months = giving editors plenty of time to find sources- the article can survive without content that you yourself admit is not all true until proper sources can be found. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 months or a year. It really doesnt matter as long as the "weasel words" tag remains. You are just trying to prove you are right and I am just trying to make this article and all the other tamil articles more neutral. I never admitted that the lines of this article are completely untrue. Please don't make me look like a person against this page. And I am very sure that you can't prove that they are entirely untrue. You can only remove something if its completely not true. No offense. :) I am new user. Give me time i ll fix the probs of all the tamil caste articles. Lindamd90 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dear, the content has been challenged. Returning the content without providing reliable sources is disruptive behavior and continued disruptive behavior will lead to your account being blocked. Please now revert yourself and bring the article into a condition that more closely meets our guidelines and policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe new. But its not that I am not aware of what I am doing or the wikipedia rules. This article was written by many. And I don't think we have the right to say that they are all wrong unless we have the appropriate proofs. Whoever you are, i can only say that you sound like a lawyer. You are not going to win anything over this issue. If someone says that Napolean Bonparte was a nadar, you can remove it immediately. But claims in this article are almost true. Yes, it was challenged. Challenged by two parties. You are only supporting one point of view which ,ofcourse is deletion, without contemplating the pt of view of the other party. You are not supposed to neglect my views completely by speaking about things regarding neutrality. What you are doing is not at all neutral. You are just opposing the suggestions of many without even looking into it. Prove that they are not at all right(which you can't) or let the article be until it reaches a conclusion. And I am not at all worried about losing my account. Because what I am doing is right. Try something else. Wikipedia is run by suggestions made by many. You can't just remove their suggestions without even giving them a chance to prove that they are right. And I think you are the only person to disturb this article after bake and ravichandran. Sorry to be blunt.Lindamd90 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new to Wikipedia, (you have also claimed that you are not new) did it ever occur to you that as a newcomer you might not understand Wikipedias rules and policies as well as someone who has been here a while knows them?

For instance, you claim "You can't just remove their suggestions without even giving them a chance to prove that they are right." You are just wrong. I can remove anything at any time that anyone has not provided a reliable source to support. To quote again from our policy since you appear not to have clicked the link to go to the page itself and read it "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

And now I will ask you one more time to provide reliable sources now or revert your edit, or I will. And if you continue to return unsourced content to the article you will be blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was deliberately bitten by a senior editor for providing a valuable idea regarding how to edit a caste article. I have provided this article with additional NPOV proofs(still have to find proofs for in the field of economics). TRPOD forcefully didnt even agree to give me more time. Cutting a caste article into nothing will only promote new problems. I ll append the rest of the proofs required for this article in a days time. And I ll continue to edit the other tamil caste articles as soon as Iam done with this article. I hope other reliable wikipedian editors would support my efforts.Lindamd90 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of unsourced and poorly sourced content "will only promote new problems" if editors become determined to violate policy by returning improper content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "User:Protecting"

A page you created, User:Protecting, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Made a mistake.Lindamd90 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Protecting

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Protecting. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I dont understand. Could you be alittle more explicit?? :)

I am well read and informed about the history of caste in Tamilnadu. What authority do you have to comment on these subjects?.The passage that contradict with the original history is what been removed. I am sorry if you can't stand by the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybernetizen (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernetizen, it makes no difference if you are 'well read and informed' if you can't provide sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Barret (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war...

Hi.. can you look in to this: Anti-Shannar riots of Sivakasi? Thanks. Axxn (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lindamd90. You have new messages at Anandks007's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Nadar (caste). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the tags were not placed by 1forthe monkey. It was placed by linguisticgeek. His intensions didnt seem very NPOV or resourceful. Ok. ThanksLindamd90 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help

i am lookin for help to enter runner-ups in Tamil Nadu election artcicles such as Tamil Nadu state assembly election, 1971. we need as much as help we can get and ur contribution will be much appreciated. --CarTick 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help to rectify the Sivakasi riots article and the nadar article. Please do make it according to our point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.92.201 (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help this page and sivakasi riots page also. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.235.177 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help in reconstructing this page.Please consider my request.