Jump to content

User talk:Yeditor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yeditor (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 4 September 2006 (Deleted bogus tags (accusations) by User Shubash Bose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Yeditor! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing!
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

— Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Texts

I've posted a new version of the Buddhist texts paragraph that I think is better suited to the article. I feel that the previous version gave too much weight to the writings of Dr. Ambedkar- including those particular quotations from him, without any context or discussion, could give the impression that his opinion was being presented as authoritative. If you'll notice, there are almost no individual works by another author that are sited in that section- everything is just portions of the traditional scriptures. As several authors have made attempts at creating a single-volume introduction to the scriptures, it seems more balanced to give some attention to several of them, rather than focusing entirely on Dr. Ambedkar's personal views on a 'proper' understanding of Buddhist scripture. --Clay Collier 10:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the change. But would like to mention that the Author has set out clearly in the introduction that "The Buddha and His Dhamma" is a compilation and assembly plant. He claims no originality of the text. I request you to follow the link to the book and read beyond the 'Introduction'. I am sure you will read it to the end. Regarding Babasaheb Ambedkar; There can hardly be a greater authority on Buddhism.--Yeditor 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice on your edits

I have reverted your edits in the Vishnu article. They were strongly pov, and not referenced properly. Some of your other edits also seem problematic to me. Please consider the following:

  • If you add something, try to write it as neutral as possible and back it up with sources.
  • Don't delete links and text only because yout think it is not supporting your personal pov.
  • Please read WP:NPOV

--Rayfield 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:240x240 bio ambedkar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:240x240 bio ambedkar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Caste Article

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Based on your history, you are a persistent vandal. I will report you the next time this happens.Netaji 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in accordance with wikipedia rules, I am going to put warning templates for every act of vandalism. If you persist after three warnings, you will be reported as per rules.

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Netaji 12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second warning for vandalism:

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

You will be reported for Personal attacks

In accordance with wikipedia rules, this is your first warning against personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You have two more warnings, after which I will report you.Netaji 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now your second warning. You have one more warning:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Netaji 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Netaji 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem Yeditor? There is no need for racist insults just because Netaji is right.Bakaman%% 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are dangerously close to violating WP:3RR rule

If you violate WP:3RR rule I will report you for that also.Netaji 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and 3RR

Would you like to be blocked for personal attacks [1] or for 3RR on Caste? Take you pick... either way, its 12h William M. Connolley 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply in case of Vandalism,the diff above suggests a personal attack which should have attracted NPA warning.However I have seen worst cases where no action has been taken.Holy|Warrior 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Yeditor to go for WP:RFC,I think he is subject to systematic harassment from fundywatch brigade.Holy|Warrior 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the fundywatch brigade, I see HolyWarrior has done some recruiting no? Bakaman Bakatalk 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. You give Netaji a warning for vandalism while you vandalize the Manusmriti page. Stop the hypocrisy, were trying to build an encyclopedia, not a megaphone for anti-Brahmin literature.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The content was removed because it was under a Wrong topic. It was also Original research and not referenced. Please stop maligning othersYeditor 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really I'm sorry. I guess I'm a "blatant Hindu vandal". Don't put unwarranted warnings for no reason. Bakaman Bakatalk 14:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is not unwarrantedYeditor 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yeditor. Please do not put edit summaries in your edits citing "vandalism" by Bharatveer and Bakasuprman when there clearly is content dispute. This is a form of personal attack. Also, please refrainf from adding bogus vandalism tags. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello blnguyen, Please check history of the multiple reverts been made by these users including user Subhash Bose by citing vandalism, whenever there is a content dispute. I dont think that the warning is unwarranted.Yeditor 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've told them off for using bogus tags as well. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Unfortunately Yeditor's edits so far have been extremely hatemongering and anti-Hindu. I suggest he read some serious and broad range of textual material for a balanced view of things and discuss them with specific sources cited. He should not advance POV or make polemical attacks in the article or the talk page against the subject of the article or other editors, for that IS vandalism.Netaji 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. None of my works have been Anti-Hindu. However, this is an encyclopedia. What YOU think is anti-hindu cannot be a criteria for inclusion in wiki. Wiki requires much better standards. I too have a suggestion that first you devote more time in contributing than reverting and coterie formation check this. It will be particularly helpful if remove your Anti-Dalit bais. Your talk page bears evidence of your activities. You have also used the sock puppet ‘Piyushmitra shunga’Yeditor 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Dalit"? Dude, I'm a Shudra. That's pretty close to a Dalit. What's next? Are you going to accuse Zakir Naik of being anti-muslim? lol!Netaji 08:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be better if you read the wiki guidelines youself.Wikipedia is NOT the place to indulge in anti hindu Povs.Bharatveer 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, take your anti-Hindu POV (especially the ones on talk pages) to Chowk where they would welcome you with open arms. This way you can rant about "Hinduism" while the encyclopedia can be managed by real contributors.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the vandalizing on Caste, changing "Indian Caste System" to "Hindu" caste system. Muslims in South Asia also have a caste system.Netaji 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do christians.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin conspiracy

Is everything a Brahmin conspiracy? Bakaman Bakatalk 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambedkar

I agree with you that the purpose of wikipedia is to provide complete information. But the part I don't agree with is that all the information needs to be there in the main B. R. Ambedkar article. One of the main goals here is to get the article featured. See WP:WIAFA. One of the criteria there is that the article must be comprehensive, with no major details being left out. Another criteria is that the article must use summary style. Which means that no section should be too long or with too much details. All those details must be moved to daughter articles providing a short but comprehensive summary in the main article. So here is my opinion (and just for the record - I hold no bias for or against Ambedkar. I just want to get the article featured so that it can appear on the main page as a featured article) - Dr. Ambedkar is not a writer. Writing was not his primary occupation and hence does not deserve such a long list. The list is long, and distracting. The least we can do is remove the external links to each article and just provide one link to the site [2]. That means we are providing the user with a proper link, and he can click on the site itself to see whatever work he/she wants to read. Just by doing that we reduce 61 external links to just one. The text can now appear as plain text and less distracting with all those blue links. Secondly, I am still not convinced that we can't find a credible source which mentions the best and most important works of Dr. Ambedkar. What needs to be done in order to meet FA criteria is to shift the list to a separate article. Something like List of writings and speeches of B. R. Ambedkar. At the beginning the list could be just a list, but then could be expanded to have a short summary of each speech. Then in the main article B. R. Ambedkar, the focus would be on the selected works, and explaining why each of those works is important. I want you to think over these suggestions and then decide what would be the best way to go forward so that the article could reach FA status. You could also contact some users like User:Nichalp or User:Taxman to give their opinion on the list. They are quite busy people but their judgements on articles is brilliant. I am sure both of them would suggest the same things that I have suggested. Regards, Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AKSI. thanks for your explanation. Check this section Bibliography of Russels Books. on Bertrand Russel page No one can deny that this is an excellent page. And no one can accuse it of being overly lengthy. It contains quite a big list of Russels works. In this context, I dont understand your concerns. I agree that the list definitely requires 'formating' but certainly not 'removing'. Just because most of of Babasahebs works are available online (mainly on one site) does not mean that each of them (writings) cannot not be mentioned on the page. As regards the length of the list, many writings and speeches already grouped under these topics and this list is as concise as it can get. There are several others writings and speeches in English and in other languages ( hindustani and Marathi) which are not available online or have never been translated. You have a point when you suggest links can be removed and list presented as plain text with one link at the bottom. But this does not work when the material exists in multiple websites and it is so. Not everything is in www. ambedkar.org. Anyways thanks. I will find a way to make the list look Presentable Yeditor 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bertrand Russell would be a great example if this were an article on a writer and it is justified to include his works. But that is not the case for Dr. Ambedkar. He is foremost the architect of the constitution and the father of the Dalit movement in India, and the article should focus on that. Embedded lists are only useful in some cases and are should generally. See Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more example - Rabindranath Tagore. Even an article which is about a writer (this is a Featured Article and has also appeared on the main page) does not list out all his works. See partial bibliography section. This is what we should aim for. A partial list containing his works leading to a main article containing a list of all the works. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yeditor&oldid=73694267"