User talk:Lorstaking

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to History of India does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical Vedic Religion

I am not sure what was the point of your edits to this article. Can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, sources are not mentioning 500 BCE in the sources as the end of vedic religion, they only mention when the vedic religion begin, there was end of vedic period, there was no end of religion. I didn't removed links to main article, I just merged them under the line "{{see also|" since these articles only offer a related view about that section or not, most of them don't, they are not main or bigger article about this section, unless there was some article like "Origins of Vedic religion". Last one was "BC", which should be "BCE" since wp:era tells to stick to one era style. Hope you can self revert. Lorstaking (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what source you are talking about. The Michaels's book, cited page, has a big table with lots of dates, and 500 BC is clearly there. The main article links are necessary, because this section summarises the content from them. If you don't think that is appropriate, please raise it on the article's talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Michaels do talk about development of Vedic religion, but when you look at page 33 - 36, you will find that he is talking about the development of Vedic religion rather than its existence, instead we need to put "and developed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE to 500 BCE", rather than saying "and existed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE to 500 BCE". User:Kautilya3[1] "and clan by clan, after 1900 B.C." It is not saying anywhere that Vedic religion ended with 500 BCE, there was no end date of Vedic religion, but only end date of Vedic civilization which is also called Vedic Period. 1750 BCE is the dating only about the beginning of Vedic religion on this article, it is also supported by other sources.[2][3][4] If articles summarizes content from those articles then its "{{Further|" but not "{{Main|", {{Main| is used only when small amount of some portion has been forked to the article. Lorstaking (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you have now checked the source and admitted that the 500 BC is present. You cannot delete sourced content unless there are other sources that contradict it, and argue on the article talk page that scholarly consensus is lacking.

As for the main article links, I have already told you that you need to raise them on the article talk page.

Please take your time and formulate coherent arguments. Wikipedia has no deadline! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a section on talk page. These edits seem minor, not even crucial. Lorstaking (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Page numbers for books

Would you please provide these in the future. They're needed so that future editors can verify the source (and note that text often gets changed ignoring the fact that it's sourced). Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed some of my recent edits, you are right, I actually missed adding the page numbers, I am writing them now. Thanks! Lorstaking (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Era style chsnges

You need to read WP:ERA. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit[5] changed those BCE to BC that I had just replaced, era style should be either BC or BCE on that article, presently it is using both BCE and BC. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed after delving into the history. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lorstaking. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vedic period. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lorstaking. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on Afd for Vietnam Veterans for Factual History

What do you mean by "The content needs to be transferred to the articles of the members of this organization"? If that will resolve the issue, I'll be glad to do it, but I'm not certain what "it" is. Txantimedia (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Images and 2nd - 1st millennium BCE

The reason I changed those images for both India and China is because the original images had little to with the topic. Those images showed the cultural spheres for both India and China and didn't really focus on the cradle of civilization aspect. This is why I replaced those images with descriptive Indus Valley civilization and Erlitou culture images respectively. That is what the core of those subsections are about. You refer to the reason to why you do not accept the Indus Valley civilization image because it "doesn't describe events dating 7600 BCE". I do not understand your logic on this. 7600 BC describes the Neolithic era. The consensus is that civilization didn't begin until at least 3300 BC. Also the image presented for the Egypt subsection describes that of the New Kingdom and it doesn't describe predynastic Egypt, so why is that image acceptable while mine is not? I do however apologize for the copy-pasting. I wanted to describe the Vedic era for the India subsection as the Zhou dynasty was mentioned in the China subsection. I will use my own words in the future. But you really didn't need to undo 100% of my work here. I don't have any interest in starting an edit war with you but I think some of your revisions were unjustified. I am more than willing to have a discussion with you on the future of the image situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardElric2016 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Lorstaking, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 06:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Notification needs to happen once a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edit at WP:ANI...

Did not appear constructive and I have reverted it. I also note that you did not include an edit summary in what appeared to be a mass deletion of open discussions. If you think this was a mistake please feel free to discuss this with me. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Was about to revert the accident but you reached before. This happens when we accidentally save particular section as entire page. Lorstaking (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I saw that you are not a new editor which made me suspect that this was some kind of accident or technical blip. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comments on ANI

Lorstaking, you need to be careful when throwing around accusations. For example, in this edit, you not only link to a fairly innocuous edit by Mar4d but also bring up their socking history unnecessarily as evidence of their bad faith, neither of which are tenable pieces of evidence. All the more surprising that you're doing so in an ANI report that is pretty much supporting your position. Repeatedly not assuming good faith can lead to blocks so please be careful. --regentspark (comment) 23:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking a little more carefully at your comments in that ANI thread, I suggest you strike some of the ones you've made about mar4d. The ones relating to prior socking and the ones relating to competence. --regentspark (comment) 23:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My comments on his socking are nonetheless correct and block logs are there for using as evidence since its the quickest way to analyze user's conduct. I can myself name at least dozens of examples of last few hours where someone referred to block log of the person and I have been doing this on ANI, which is an ideal place for that. Read this comment, it speaks about it all. What actually convinced Mar4d to think of safeguarding an incompetent ethnic POV pusher? If you read Mar4d's comments carefully, they are full of serious allegations of misconduct and without evidence.[6][7] I know that Mar4d has similar stance as the user in question [8], but that is not enough of a reason to sacrifice yourself and Mar4d has done this before.[9] After all, there are 100s of admins looking at ANI and they all know that none of this constitutes any personal attack but useful information. There was no reason that Mar4d has to admin shop you.[10] And such admin shopping, false claims of personal attacks, unfounded allegations can indeed lead to a block. Lorstaking (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

MSW

Lorstaking, have you come across this newly reactivated account yet : MapSGV ? If you have not, maybe try to take a look when you get a chance.

• Was created/active around the 2014-15 time frame with 20 odd edits, before going dormant
• Reactivated a week ago
• Among the initial edits after reactivation are edits on Hinduism and its talk page, where some comments were made on the potential similarity with MSW.
• See some edit summary similarity with MSW : e.g., "stick to (the) source" , focus on "Copyvio".
• During recent edit warring on Tourism in India, repeatedly refers to Gyan publishing as an unreliable source. MSW edit summaries and text routinely referred to Gyan publishing's unreliability.

Since you have looked into AVC/MSW socks extensively, thought of sharing to see what you think. Js82 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this account too and his interests are mostly military. He is also living far away from MSW. I had first seen him when he was arguing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, an on-going AfD where I have also voted. Gyan Publishing is indeed a self published source. Sure he made similar edits on Hinduism as MSW[11] but those edits were justified and either him or someone else would have done the same as they seemed too eye catching that even Kautilya3 had reverted those edits earlier[12], then other two editors(JJ, D4i) also argued that the content was unfit for the lead. A lot of people stop editing Wikipedia due to many reasons or just they feel they have accomplished what they wanted at the time. I also stop editing for months to year. Though many editors resume their old account for particular POV editing/disruption, and I see none here. Lorstaking (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

He seems to be dealing with a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. Lorstaking (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Look into some of the writing style also when you get a chance. There seems to be some similarity in phrases, etc; it may take some time though to see carefully. And how did you deduce the "living far" aspect ? Js82 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Js82: I saw big differences in timings that's why I said that they are living far from each other. You can file an SPI yourself if your are confident. Lorstaking (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

AE

Please look at what you're doing and stop replacing the entire page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Some technical problem with this lame browser that keeps cutting links. Have to fix it time to time. Lorstaking (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please do not make offtopic comments at administrative boards. Going into comparisons of what happened to you, or whatever, is not relevant to the issues at hand and is in fact, disruptive. People go there to get solutions to problems, not hear others soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Hello. Your recent edit to King Philip Regional High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. The subject you re-added to the above article's notable alumni list not only did not have a biography, but her name was purposefully redirected to the article about the crime. Unequivocally, she is fails WP:BLP1E. A blue link does not always mean a person belongs on a notable list. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I know she fails WP:BLP1E. You are not always required to have stand alone article about the person for inclusion and references can be added if the person lacks own article per WP:ALUMNI. Her association with the school has been significantly mentioned by independent reliable sources.[13][14][15] Lorstaking (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal maybe right after all. Given WP:SNOW consensus to merge per Talk:Death_of_Conrad_Roy#Merge_Proposal, it seems I had misunderstanding that the article still existed and after receiving your note above I assumed that it was redirected without consensus. The name was added before merge[16] to King Philip Regional High School, it seems the removal was overdue. Lorstaking (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lorstaking: Hi. Looks like you just posted a comment @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia that you meant to post @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination). E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these two AfD's came around the same time, have same participants. I believed my vote was probably lost somewhere. Thanks for notifying. Lorstaking (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Buddha Avatara

I am not understanding Why are you always doing overwrite on the true fact that Buddha is not avatar of Vishnu and part of Hinduism, yes he has followed the culture of Hinduism but he has left Brahmanism as he couldn't find anything except superstitious why you want to delete the true fact of the history I am not understanding Please define or else I will have to take necessary action against you and your IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.77 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a month for his continued copyright violations.[17] My Lord (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Regional Powers

Dear this regional power issue between India and Pakistan been going on for quite a while. It is also evident that Indian's don't want Pakistan listed as a regional power even though its properly cited. Please provide some reasons why Pakistan should not be on the list? Even the map includes Pakistan as a regional power in South Asia.