User talk:Solomon7968/Archive3

Archives
1 |

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thorvald Madsen, Solomon7968!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Interesting article reviewed with new page tool. Needs s little more translation to finish it and make the meaning clearer.Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Navi Radjou

Attempting to revert vandalism at Navi Radjou, you have rolled back the page by 16 months to January 2012. In doing so, you have also reverted a number of perfectly valid edits. In view of the large number of edits you were attempting to revert, I can understand why you did it this way, but if you chose this method, particularly after such a long intervening period, it is up to you to ensure that the subsequent valid edits are retained, which you have failed to do. In particular, these include the Authority control template and amendments to the Persondata and categories. Can you please ensure these are corrected. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit overwhelmed now but I will ensure it within tomorrow. Thanks for notifying. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know the problem. Not desperately urgent, but it does need doing. Thanks. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

List of colonial universities in British India

Hi! I have included few colleges in the list. Does the list include the institutions established by zamindars during the British era? If yes than few more might be included. Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is vast in its scope. I am here trying to list the institutions which are at present universites but founded in the British era by the British Raj. Now you can list the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology which is a university but probably the three you added are colleges. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See this List of Colonial Colleges. To make the article good we have to add indviudual reference for each entry. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The colleges are actually degree-granting which is why I added them, feel free to remove them if inappropriate. BUET was established by a Zamindar (if I'm not wrong) during the British raj, so was Jagannath University. I thought the page is only about the institutions established by the British Indian government, so didn't add them. There is another one which might be up for inclusion, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University. Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do not know of Bangladesh and Pakistan but you are right that it lists institutions established by the British Indian government. Now the list in itself is useless if there are no sources that is reference assigned to each entry. You can see the List of colonial universities in Latin America. It has reference for each entry. Now I am currently busy in some other areas. You can help by adding reference that Dhaka University was started in 1920. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

2 weeks Block

2 weeks Block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I received your email and replying here. Do not remove active block templates while you are blocked, they provide information for reviewing admin. I've reverted your blanking. You risk extension of the block and loss of talk page access if you revert back again. I've blocked the IP you used to bypass this block and deleted your edit on my talk page. If you continue to evade your block by using IP addresses, you will force me to extend this block to a month. Any request for an unblock should be made here, using the unblock template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC) I got your other email. You will be able to edit in two weeks, this isn't a permanent block. The type of disruption you participated in justifies the two week block. If you think it should be lifted, then you need to use the unblock template. Emailing me isn't the solution. I'm not holding the single use of the IP against you here and will just consider the single use a mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Solomon7968 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have already confessed to User:Dennis Brown. My use of alternative account did not did much disruption except in the Afd which I also used in such a manner that anybody can guess the account was an impostor. I want to be unblocked so that I can make useful contribution to wikipedia. Anyone can check my user page to see the places I am working on and Special:Contributions/Solomon7968 and my [created pages]. If this is not enough then please consider shortening the block to one week or 5 days. Thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: It is clear that the nature of your sockpuppet editing was highly disruptive in intention. I am at a loss to understand why the fact that your false claims to be someone else were so incompetent as to be easily detectable is a reason for unblocking. You have wasted a number of people's time with your dishonest and unconstructive activity (most recently mine in checking the background to assess this unblock request), and I think a two weeks' break is a much better way of making it clear that what you did will not be acceptable than would be telling you that you had a two weeks' block, but retracting it once you start saying that you didn't really do any harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. :@JamesBWatson I am satisfied by your decline rationale but you are wrong to claim "the nature of your sockpuppet editing was highly disruptive in intention". First of all when I got in the AFD I used the term "Speedy Delete, Pure Hoax" with only 3 edits. Is it not willfully implying on my part that I am an impostor? Sure that it is not a unblocking reason but I stated that I want to contribute to wikipedia and that is why want to be unblocked. Do not take it that I want you to review your judgement but only as a defending on my part. Thanks. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Solomon7968 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Given that I cannot undo the waste of time and effort of other editors due to the disruption (adding undue speedy deletion tag to two articles and trolling in one AFD) I created by a sockpuppet the "Only" reason I want to be unblocked is to create good contributions to Wikipedia in future as I have done in before. I belief I am a good contributor to wikipedia and have better contribution than many others. Part of the reason the original administrator blocked me for 14 days was to forbid me from participating in the RFA of User:Bilby. Since it will be over by the time my Unblock is reviewed, my appeal to the reviewing admin will be to at best shorten my block. Again I repeat my "Only" reason for unblocking is that I want to make good contributions to Wikipedia in future as I have done in before. Thanks. Solomon7968 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: Having re-read this over a period of a couple of days, I have to say that I'm not convinced. Making an account that was obviously an imposter is tremendously inappropriate and disruptive to start - just because you think everyone would/should have recognized it as an imposter does not make it better. Wikipedia is not a joke or a game, and acting as an imposter is never appropriate - you certainly do not seem to understand that aspect, and thus this request is not WP:GAB compliant. I personally think that a mere 2 week block is actually far too short, considering the nature of the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Solomon7968 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Third attempt: In my earlier attempt User:Bwilkins said "this request is not WP:GAB compliant". Following what WP:GAB says: Understand what you did and why you have been blocked: I confess adding undue speedy deletion tag to two articles and trolling in one AFD using sockpuppet and understood the disruption I created and I am extremely sorry for that and I take full responsibilty and no excuse for that. Specially sorry to use the word "Impostor Account". Courtesy: User:Bwilkins later added Give a good reason for your unblock: My good reason is that "I want to make good contributions to Wikipedia in future as I have done in before". Stick to the point: I really want to make good contributions. The reviewing admin can even see the Iain M. Johnstone article I created in my talk page below. Re:Given every editor is giving his voluntary effort to develop wikipedia and I have no COI to attach to wikipedia to promote anything, I believe unblocking me will be good for the project. Ultimately blocks are done to prevent harm to the project. I belief that I have learnt my lesson so unblocking me after one week block is justified. Thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Accept reason: I'm taking it on faith the the block has served its purpose. Keep in mind that future instances of sockpuppetry will result in a longer block or an indef block. It is more disruptive than you understand. I'm going to take you at your word that this was a one time mistake. We all make mistakes, it is how we act afterwards that defines us. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I will leave it to any admin to review and will honor their decision and have no strong opinion one way or another. Part of the reason that socks are blocked longer than 24 hours is to intentionally disqualify them from participating in discussion (AFD, RfA, etc.) that they were participating in. Once they sock and deceive, they forfeit their right to participate. If an admin unblocks, I would suggest barring from any ongoing RfAs as a condition, which is how he got blocked to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC) :Thanks I am giving a word that I will not participate in the ongoing RFA and will not use any sock in future. You can indef block me if I do not keep my word. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The above still doesn't address the imposter account (and the fact that he's modifying things he shouldn't be to add "small" tags speaks volumes ... deleting or modifying declined unblocks, etc is a no-no). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Hey I did not modified a single word and I clearly stated that I am responsible for the entire disruption. I am sorry to use the word "Impostor Account". Really extremely sorry and Re: I only added small tags no single modification or deletion of comments. Thanks Solomon7968 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) @User:Bwilkins another time E-mailed you for some clarification. Sorry for any trouble. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Modified as per User:Bwilkins. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks @User:Dennis Brown Solomon7968 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Harinath De at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Dennis Brown, Please do the courtesy of tagging the nomination page with {{db-g7}}. Thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Dennis Brown What type of joke? You are an admin, You could have directly deleted that instead of publicly stating "Per request of blocked editor on their talk page". Thank you Solomon7968 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a joke, I did exactly as you asked. The author of the article (you) didn't actually blank the page, so I simply provided a link back to the authority in which I was claiming you wanted to. I don't delete articles that I am tagging unless they are clearly vandalism or an attack page. The goal is to always have two sets of eyes on every deletion. I tag articles all the time and let other admin delete them. Just because I have the tools to delete an article doesn't mean I should use them in every instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay User:Dennis Brown Please do me the courtesy then by removing the "underconstruction" tag from Laurentius Blumentrost. It is already there for now 4 days. Thanks in advance. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Undeleted versions

If any admin have watchlisted my talk page will he be kind to provide me the undeleted versions of the following pages in my user space.

• Nirmala B. Limaye
• H. S. Gopalakrishna

Thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Solomon7968/Nirmala_B._Limaye and User:Solomon7968/H._S._Gopalakrishna ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Addshore I want to restore the original H. S. Gopalakrishna article before Afd that is the article with its full History made by User:Status quo not acceptable. Added to the trouble now that I am currently blocked for 14 days (I will do it after expiry of the block). Where should I contact or what step should I follow? Thank you. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, If you improve it while you are blocked and take note of all of the things that were mentioned in the AFD I see no reason why you could not just recreate the article (as long as everything is fixed)! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Addshore Currently I can only edit my talk page. And I want to take it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and preserve the article with its original history. Can a participant admin on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics unilaterally restore the Pre Afd version without any formal step. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because that would be in defiance of the consensus to delete the article in its current state. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Boing! said Zebedee you can take a look at the article history of V. J. Havel which was restored after a proposed deletion after a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics by admin Michael Hardy. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Once you are unblocked, you can work on the articles and satisfy the deletion issues - or you could start a new discussion and try to gain a new consensus to accept the articles in their current state. But while you are blocked, you cannot ask other people to undertake proxy editing for you. (I do note, however, that the userfied versions that were made for you did not restore the entire edit histories, so I will make new versions for you shortly - please give me half an hour or so and I'll get back to you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have updated the those user copies for you so they now contain the full version history. If you can satisfy the deletion problems or get a new consensus to overturn the deletion, you can move them to main space once your block expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Laurentius Blumentrost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nicholas Bernoulli and Gerhard Müller

Cécile DeWitt-Morette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Institute of Advanced Study

List of colonial universities in British India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Presidency University

Léon Motchane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Institute of Advanced Study

Ruslan Stratonovich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Hubbard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Chelyshev

On 4 June 1891 Vivekananda first met Ajit Singh of Khetri, that has been posted at today's DYK (see now) (ot archived copy). Anyway, about Chelyshev, I am interested to go forward with the Vivekananda hook in Chelyshev article. But there are two obstacles 1) a part of it needs to be copyedited. 2) the article does not have infor/source on Vivekananda. I am struggling with slow internet. We have only 36 hours or so in hand. The unsourced/unnecessary paragraphs may be removed as you are doing and it can be taken to DYK after doing at least some work in "as it is" condition. If DYK reviewer asks to make changes, that can be done later. That's all I can think at this moment. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 08:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is I am struggling to find which of the claims in this article are really relevant. My source was the Bengali book "Monishider Chokhe Vivekananda". I really did not expected the article has a Russian article. Good I will try to copy edit the article. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Arey! Bangali! She jak.. oi boi ta amar kache nei (anyway, I do not have that book), I too did not expect this person having so much notability in Russia. I am morally feeling uneasy to put the Vivekananda point in the DYK hook! But, have to... I have been preparing another article User:Titodutta/Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata). Do not need any help at this moment.. Do you have any free image of the statue? This Gopark is jus 4 km from my residence, but, I am very lazy and another point is I do not have a good digital camera at this moment. Feel free to suggest hook for the statue article! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 08:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I am from Chandanagar. But Re: It seems I have lost the book "Monishider Chokhe Vivekananda" but if I remember right the book has only two "Monishi" entries who do not have Wiki article. The name was probably a Chinese, but not sure though. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes most probably Huang Xin Chuan, professor of History of Beijing University, wrote a book "The Modern India Philosopher Vivekananda: A Study". That can be started after this. This E. P. Chelisev, Ex-Director of the Institute of. Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences was an follower of Vivekananda inspite of the official policy of Atheism of the government of USSR? needs to be mentioned and sourced in the article. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 08:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My statement is a bit "Original Research by Synthesis". It is true that you will never get a citation for this. But it is universally known that the official policy of the government of USSR in religion was Atheism because of Marxist interpretation of Evolution. But this is a wll supported hook Do you know Eugene Chelyshev was the first Russian winner of Shaitya Academy Award?. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds good! You can go ahead and nominate when you'll think it is ready (we have 36 hoursor so) in hand. Don't worry about QPQ, I'll add one later. Remove the claeup template before nominating. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 10:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 10:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 10:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Chelyshev

Nominate for DYK Eugene Chelyshev. Not much time in hand! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Solomon7968 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene Chelyshev

Alright! I have checked Harinath De, added an image and few words, more expansion is not possible at this moment. You can start Huang Xin Chuan, but there are not too many sources. You can also expand one of these articles Pavhari Baba, Sister Gargi, Bhupendranath Datta! Do you have Sangsad Bangla Charitabhidhan? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 02:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No I do not have Sangsad Bangla Charitabhidhan but Harinath De could have been a good DYK but I missed it nevertheles. Will look in the articles. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

INCOTM

Hi, you are receiving this message because your name is listed at Wikipedia:INCOTM/Members, where people indicate their interest in the India Project Collaboration of the Month (INCOTM).

INCOTM is restarting and you are welcome to nominate articles for collaborative improvement during July 2013. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taraknath Palit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Partition of Bengal and Hindu College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jayadevp13 12:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jayadevp13 06:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Talk:Persecution_of_Biharis_in_Bangladesh.
Message added 10:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 10:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Mathstat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

edit war in persecution

Agreed, apologies for losing my head there. But that IP launched personal attacks on the talk page, and no one responded.--ArmanJ (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eugene Chelyshev

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Archived copy --Tito☸Dutta 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Taraknath Palit

The DYK project (nominate) 10:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ivan Borgman

Hello! Your submission of Ivan Borgman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sister Gargi

Can you take care of Template:Did you know nominations/Sister Gargi --Tito☸Dutta 16:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I heard the name of Marie Louise Burke before but not Sister Gargi. She is more famous by the name Marie Louise Burke. Solomon7968 16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, MLB is a common name. Don't know if it is more common than Sister Gargi. There is another Marylouise Burke. --Tito☸Dutta 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just tweaked the template "Swami Vivekananda". More or less every indologists were influenced by him. Solomon7968 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I initially kept an "Influenced" section, later deleted the row, see this version --Tito☸Dutta 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The vivekananda template in Chelyshev seems partisan. He can be remembered for 1)Indologist 2)Russian Academician 3)Sahitya Academy fellowship winner. The "Influenced" term seems correct. Solomon7968 17:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to serve more. Faizan 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 there. Faizan 11:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

István Rusznyák (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vitamin P

Ivan Borgman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Popov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Littlehailes

Hello! Your submission of Richard Littlehailes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Littlehailes

Hello, Solomon7968. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Littlehailes.
Message added 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manxruler (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

3RR

I guess not, the user is removing the SPA tag in that AfD, he has just made 9 edits outside the AfD. I have also discussed the matter in his talkpage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake I did not saw the edit difference. The Legend of Zorro 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Thanks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

You really, really should not edit war in someone else's userspace, as you have been doing. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush is right. Even if you detect blatant inconsistencies in a userspace draft, it is not advisable to edit-war over it. You may get involved in the talk and mark the draft with {{Userspace}} (automatically includes the command __NOINDEX__ to exclude it from google search) or something to denote that it's not an article and not technically bounded by the policies that apply to article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

"The thing which most frustrates me is lack of reliable sources on politics in India specifically the "Votebank politics"." - Very, very true. Amidst all the prevalent biases, against specific creeds and sects, on Wikipedia, it really is very frustrating. Censorship, bowdlerization and outright distortion of historical facts from history books and news-reports are so ubiquitous that it's really hard to find a decently neutral academic source these days about topics ranging from the ancient civilization of India to the modern developments. It's an open secret that the rulers of India right since the British-occupation and, occasionally, foreign "allies" of India have exploited the pervasive religious divide in Indian society. What strikes me as most odd is, why is then only one hapless portion of the country is more vilified than the other? Bigots from all sides contributed to this divide equally zealously and thus are equally culpable, then why only one damn portion of the populace is at loss in country which guards egalitarian ethics in the constitution? Why are we never able to set the facts straight ever? Everything is so cleverly convoluted and obfuscated that nobody can be sure about anything. Despondent outcries of good citizens are nonchalantly cast aside like they are squeaks of a vermin. It seems no matter what the government does it's just tantamount to spinning own wheels. Shame on India's politics and god damned media and its self-censorship! God help the country where most educated people hold the view that connivance, passivity and integrity are the same thing. Where most believe giving equal validity to every claim, without due regard to its credibility, is neutrality. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you might want to comment here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was nice of you, thanks. My number changes on me every now and then, but it's been the same for a while. How come you have two names? 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)