Jump to content

User talk:Brihaspati

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Czarek (talk | contribs) at 07:23, 29 November 2019 (→Terez S.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

He who has killed the shark of the senses with the sword of firm dispassion can cross the sea of Saṃsāra without impediment.

— Adi Shankara

WP:REDACTED

Please see and follow this WP:REDACTED--DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated use of the word 'Cult'

Information icon Hello, I'm Apollo1203. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Word 'cult' is not uncivil. It is similar to sect. — Harshil want to talk? 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Cult has a lot of negative connotations in English. Sect is similar to the word branch or division. (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly provide differences in which I used word cult directly for you. — Harshil want to talk? 15:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj


Swami Chakrapani


Morari Bapu

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. This is a level 2 warning with regards to calling out another user on Morari Bapu talk page. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Actionjackson09: include difference first when I accused someone of bad faith.-- Harshil want to talk? 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You accused Apollo of responding on the talk page without reading what other users had written. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/928015905
That comment does not justify your warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Agnihotri

Please notice the correct way to fix the controversy section problem. If you had followed what others have done to fix the problem, the dispute might not have arisen in the first place. Hope you will see how others had fixed it and act in similar way at other places where you encounter a CSECTION--DBigXrayᗙ 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray please understand time when I changed title controversy to reception. 3 November. This was the time around when subject gave call to wash out his bio and one user named Abhijeet Safai was topic banned by Admin. I didn’t want to take chance and nobody had reverted my edit even. I cooled down and went for t/p consensus over word right winger. — Harshil want to talk? 10:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about other things, I am only discussing correct way to deal with controversy section. In your diff edit summary you have stated C SECTION, but did not fully do what was said in the essay. You merely renamed it when there was a better way to fix it. The problem with renaming is obvious, folks may not agree with your rename, claiming controversy represents it in a better way rather then another word you are trying to use there. CSECTION, is not just about renaming the section, it is about merges as well that you missed. Hope I am clear this time. regards.
Where did he make such a call ? You can post the link if you have it. I feel that it is a good idea to add a section on the talk page to alert the talk page watchers to be ready to deal with it, if such calls are publicly made--DBigXrayᗙ 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: The subject himself is making such calls repeatedly to whitewash his biography of Wikipedia and negative things from Twitter account. Here, here and here. This has been repeatedly happened and I didn't want to take any chances of TBAN or anything, already there were long t/p threads, ergo, I did one change and then I went for t/p consensus for matter which seemed negative for me.-- Harshil want to talk? 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harshil169, Your diff is dated 3 November, I started this thread to point this out to you so that you can address in a better way, the edit that you did on 3 November. you were reverted on 24 th the same day itself. After getting reverted obviously your next step will be to start a discussion that you did on 25 November after 3 weeks time. You could have started this thread on the same day when you were reverted. If you keep doing what you did on 3 November, you risk getting reverted again and again, so follow the correct way to deal with it and you may have a better chance of not getting reverted. As for TBANs, they are handed for your own acts, not just based on what others say. As long as you are not editing in an inappropriate manner, no one can get you TBAN. And WP:NPA also comes in that. DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC) edited on 11:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray you were reverted on the same day itself. not really. Winged thanked me for it and he changed it again on 25 November. Hope it clarifies. -_ Harshil want to talk? 11:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing, I stand corrected. I have struck my lines, but the rest of my comment still stands. Hope you will agree and note it. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terez S.

Is it enough sources now? shoukld i add this one too? (German) https://www.nikolaus-schmid.ch/post/ich-bin-yusuf-und-das-ist-mein-bruder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not everything" hehe, it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC) And this source is very authoritative but in Arabic : http://www.wafa.ps/ar_page.aspx?id=FHx6U3a578330806944aFHx6U3 Should I add it? will it fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarek: Wikipedia is not everything is policy. Not every details are for Wikipedia. Read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and sources are not reliable. — Harshil want to talk? 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: Thanks for your effort, I'm starting to get the hang of it :)

I went over the article, removed some junk, added a reference to a Google Book, and a ref to an article in An-Nahar. Please note that we also have an Al-Quds Al-Arabi ref here and a ref from Wafa. All very solid.

Ramesh Solanki

IMO, Ramesh Solanki will fail notability if went to AFD. He does not fulfil any criteria listed on WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is just a minor local politician and had coverage for filing cases and leaving a party. Even if he has some news coverage, he will fail becuase he has not held any office. -Nizil (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: Yes, he hasn't held any office yet but per WP:NPOL, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Also, this is certainly not WP:BLP1E. I think significant press coverage in multiple, independent, secondary and reliable sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Similar page like Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga also exists.-- Harshil want to talk? 03:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solanki is not major local political figure, IMO he is minor figure. Bagga might qualify for deletion as well but he may be considered major local politician because he is party spokesperson. I request you to invite other's opinion on Solanki's notability. -Nizil (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting tag of notability on page. — Harshil want to talk? 04:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brihaspati&oldid=928448767"