User talk:Saddhiyama

Not notable?

Hi you added the "does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music" to Sexy Zone's page however they do acoroding to WP:MUS meet several of the criteria including: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.' The group have been featured on the cover of mutiple popular japanese magazines including Myojo, Popolo and duet. They also meet this critia: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At number 1, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" The group has been heavily featued on both a show about the vollyball world cup and A cable reality show.

I think the article could have better refrences, since most english info on the is only fan info, but I think they count as notable. So can I take out the WP:MUS sign? DSQ (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You will need to post this information on the talk page of the article, so others interested in the subject can weigh in. However, on the face of it it seems they do indeed meet the notability criteria. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move this thread. Thanks for the help. :) DSQ (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Templates

I followed the link to the vandalism templates you mentioned. There are like a bazillion of them. Is there an easy way to use these things or do you have to memorize them all? I'm happy to try and use them but at first glance they seem rather daunting. Any advice? --News Historian (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it can be a bit confusing. I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, a tool which automatically leads you to the talk page of the editor after you have reverted them and has a build-in easy to use menu that includes a list where you can choose the level (between 1-4) and reason for the warning. It then automatically places the signed warning on their talk page with an appropriate heading. As you can see it makes it so much easier to use warnings.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent. Automation is good. I'll check it out. Thanks for the help. --News Historian (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Steen Andersen Bille

Hi! Could you please look at the new section Steen Andersen Bille on my talk page. You may be able to help me! Viking1808 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Yeah, I reverted my edit on Public sphere back. Not feeling like we're on the same page about your rationale for reverting it within mere hours of the edit.
First of all, you say my edit "did not appear to be constructive"? It appeared to be very constructive. Even without checking the factual validity of my edit, on the surface, just from the appearances of it, it didn't look like vandalism at all. I was changing a link to an existing article, not a red link, and the photo caption mentioned a "tea protest" and the link was to a page with "Tea Party" in the title. So, whether or not my edit was academically accurate, I take issue with the claim that it appeared to be vandalism. To someone just glancing at the edit, it would appear perfectly acceptable.
Now, to go a little deeper, not only did my edit not appear to be vandalism, but it wasn't vandalism. The picture illustrates a historical drawing of the women who participated in the 1775 Edenton Tea Party. Not the Boston Tea Party, as the link suggested, but the simultaneous Edenton Tea Party, which (as the picture's caption stated long before my "vanadalism-appearing" edit) occured in Edenton, North Carolina, not in Boston, which is in Massachusetts. For your information, Boston wasn't the only Tea Party, as whoever linked that caption before me assumed. And I can almost understand you assuming I had made a mistake...if the link I put in had been red. But it wasn't, it was a blue link, to an article about a Tea Party other than Boston, proving they existed. You just chose not to see if I was referring to the correct one in my edit. Spoiler alert: I was. In fact the article I changed the link in the caption to actually includes that exact same picture, which you might have noticed if you went to the picture's file page...maybe you did, maybe you didn't, I'm guessing not or else you would've noticed the connection between the page I linked and that picture, and then you wouldn't have ended up thinking it "appeared to not be constructive".
Now usually I wouldn't have gone through the trouble to explain exactly why I chose to reinstate an edit of mine, but you see, I'm not new to Wikipedia, as that condescending "welcome to Wikipedia" introduction might have assumed. No, been here for years, just haven't edited much lately...but in this one case I decided to correct an error, just a tiny little addition, hoping someone might appreciate it. But instead what seems to be the first person to notice it took it for vandalism and deleted it. Hardly a welcome return. So, not to be rude, I know Civility is one of the five pillars. But it's hardly civil on your part to delete a legitimate edit of an experienced editor, ignore that experience by "welcoming" them to Wikipedia, and then patronizingly suggest they take their helpful-editing ways to the Sandbox...it just rubbed me the wrong way, you know? Anyway. Sorry if I've taken up your time, though you probably didn't bother to read this whole message. Frankly the only bigger waste of time than me writing it would be you reading it. But c'est la vie. Anyway, don't revert it back, please and thanks. 50.72.242.31 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I deeply apologise. Your edit was not in any sense vandalism, and my revert was completely wrong. I can only say for myself that 1) I shouldn't edit before drinking my morning coffe 2) On account of Cluebot being down there is an extra stress on vandalism fighters at the moment, and your edit slipped in between a batch of reversions of real IP-vandals. Again I am sorry, and I have retracted the warning on your talk page and will be more careful about reading the edits when I am patrolling. Hopefully happy editing in the future. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. This is my actual signed-in account by the way, I'll use it more in future for less confusion. VolatileChemical (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Naples waste management issue

Just a few seconds, I'm introducing links to appropriate references. Btw, I live in Naples...--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. That is an article in desperate need of sources regarding recent developments. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page viewing directions

Is there a standard template or method for adding a link to viewing directions for a page? Like how to turn off images in browsers for Islamic viewers of certain pages. The topic comes up so often and it seems a suitable solution. Alatari (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, as I am unfortunately not that into the whole technical side of things. I think you may get a good answer on the Help Desk (or the Village Pump). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will try that. Ty Alatari (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop ur bullying attitude or go somewhere else

what do u know of sikhism or famous sikhs,being in the habbit of reverting everything that u don't like is ur problem not mine. Also show this attitude somewhere else, not on me. What i edited was 100% right and was required for cleanup and maintaining correctness of the article.I am born and brought up in punjab and i'm here from last 25 years, Who the hell are you to decide what's wrong and what's right. Go and do some research first on sikhism and then talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmalabs (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the discussion of the subject matter instead of making personal attacks at the editors disagreeing with you. As per the bold, revert, discuss cycle the proper way to response to my reversion would have been to take your arguments to the talk page of the Sikh article. I have started a discussion there, so please respond on that page but remember to stay civil (your edit summary here is far from that). Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You have a new message at Talk:Sikh#Unexplained_deletions. --v/r - TP 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Contact on other wikipedia

Hello, Nice to see you. Here are some unfriendly guys that I don't want to stay on English wikipedia.

But I feel glad to meet you. so maybe we keep in touch on somewhere like Simple English wikipedia? Finally, thanks you for helping me these months. A lot of thanks.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

However, I just copy same conetent from this user.[1] I think this content is exactly match with china. --Fc57zj (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Remove the POV-rant in the anti-Korean sentiment article instead of copying it into another. Otherwise it constitutes pointy behaviour. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your diligent work on Your Favorite Enemies, I hereby award you with the Cleanup Barnstar! SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nazi book burning

Please read the talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning 8digits (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saint-Just Citation Credibility

I'm not sure as to your reasoning behind judging my citation as not credible. This source has been used numerous times on the page already and is one of the leading biographies on Saint-Just. Did I format the citation incorrectly, or is it some other issue with the citation? Thank you, HIS30312CaitlinI — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS30312CaitlinI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your sourcing was fine enough. It was the wording of the addition that was lacking. If I may ask what exactly does "this was largely to ensure the disregard of inconvenient Frenchman and to safeguard against a assertion of sovereignty by the people of any particular region." mean? --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Taken in context, the quote means his emphasis on representation of people rather than territory was meant to exclude those he did not want represented such as monarchists, hence "inconvenient Frenchman", and to prevent a region of the country rising up and claiming sovereignty. Think American Civil War. I appreciate your comments, but if you could offer some assistance or alternatives for clarifying my editions it would be much more helpful. I feel the information I added was important in understanding his role and influence and would like to have it stay on the page.--User:HIS30312CaitlinI —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC).

Frederick II edit

The source was the Wikipedia article on Frederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_Thygesen_Brahe you could have done that yourself instead of deleting my edit and wasting my time

173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source (And I noticed the claim of the rescue is not sourced in that article either). You will need to find a reliable WP:Secondary source for the statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy and Absolutism (European history)

I boldly merged these articles uncontroversially in line with Wp:Merge because the two articles quite obviously describe the same thing. While I do not object to the reversal of my edits in itself, I don't quite see the point unless you actually see some substantial reason not to merge them.

You also reverted my previous edit, which was a distinct and relevant removal of an intrusive piece of text, and I don't see why you should revert that without discussion, as if it were vandalism, without asking regardless of what you think of the merge. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you reverted my addition of a Merge tag to the Absolute monarchy page before I thought I might as well be bold and actually do it rather than just tagging it; it makes no sense to have one page of a proposed merger tagged and the other not tagged, and I think that this edit that you reversed was entirely constructive. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that actually seems like a good rationale for this merger which I hadn't thought of myself. I will revert myself, and sorry about the inconvenience. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is regard to some other post (Dictatorship) in which you reverted my change by removing Saudi King from the list. It was long ago but i noticed it recently only. If Monarchy without any democratic setup is not dictatorship, what in the whole world is? Please explain your rationale soon that I could revert your change. Also there was a discussion in the talk page regarding Abdullah. You didn't care to put your reasons there!! - 122.160.141.4