User talk:Govindaharihari/Archive 3

Michael

Why is Michael being the oldest continually used name nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.252.211.36 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:151.252.211.36 - If it isn't I apologize. What about Adam? Govindaharihari (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

When is the name Adam first mentioned? Michael is, according to the American Heritage dictionary, mentioned in 2300 BC. https://web.archive.org/web/20090228211456/http://bartleby.com/61/10.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.252.211.36 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is nonsense because all names have been used for as long as others, since one name was used , all the others have been used, not everyone was suddenly called Michael - just having a link does not make it right. It says, The name MICHAEL, which comes from Hebrew mîkl, meaning “who is like God?” (see the Appendix under my1, l), may be humanity’s oldest continuously used name, for it is found not only in the Hebrew of the Bible but also in Eblaite, a Semitic language closely related to Akkadian, from about 2300 B.C. - feel free to get support on the talk page for your edit, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

my beloved father

excuse me if I appear grumpy, I lost my father this week and I am struggling with the loss. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, this must be a painful time for you. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Doug Weller your comment and support is nourishing, best regards and gratitudeGovindaharihari (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, my condolences. JS (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an AN/I report which you are involved in

Please be aware: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ad_hominem_at_Talk:Donald_Trump
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Response ('advice')

Revision history of article talk page shows that posts there hardly ever receive a reply. Do you suggest a different noticeboard? What would I say? The edit is self-explanatory and sourced [1]. Opposing editors fail to articulate a reason not to include content [2], and demonstrate incompetence [3] as well as a complete lack of knowledge about the page they're editing [4]. This is a clear example of abusing privilege. Kas42 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there User:Kas42. Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clint_Eastwood&diff=787048504&oldid=787048116 this edit summary states your change are a wp:blp violation. So I suggest you present your changes to that noticeboard wp:blpn and try to get some users to look at it. Please dont replace it again without editorial agreement, that page is a wp:good article so best to get agreement. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The page should not be a "good" article. An example of a "good" article would be Meryl Streep. You can tell that a proper fan has done their research, knows what they're writing about and has proofread. This one has errors on it. I request your assistance in arranging a discussion. Kas42 (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have a look at the good article assesment and disagree then you can request a good article review. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment - User:Kas42 - I suggest you wait and see what comments you get at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Clint Eastwood - Govindaharihari (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Still no comments at the noticeboard. What do you suggest now? Kas42 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry abnout that, that noticeboard is usually quite active and well manned. My best suggestion to you now is that you take that page off your watchlist and accept that not all is perfect here at wikipedia. You will fell better. This place is far from perfect and sometimes you will find, even when correct, that is not good enough to affect change. Best wishes to you @Kas42: - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive words, but I wish to pursue this further and would appreciate your assistance. Opposing editor has left another absurd message on my talk page and it would help if someone other than myself pointed out its falsity. I consider this stalking and harassment because editor is telling outright lies but packaging the lies in words that imply sincerity. Kas42 (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

Would appreciate your participation in this discussion [5]. Kas42 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute on B.o.B

I have not blocked User:Darryl Dwight Howard Warren Richardson at this time. Please discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page. Thanks.

BTW, WP:AIV is really for blatant vandalism. I don't think this qualified.

Finally, I'm sure you're aware of WP:3RR. Re-report if this continues rather than reverting again. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well he is good and blocked now, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darryl_Dwight_Howard_Warren_Richardson&diff=799085699&oldid=798970931 thanks for the comments. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Please note that starsunfolded.com is a blog/celebrity database that does not meet Wikipedia's stringent reliable sourcing requirement for BLPs. Please do not use it to verify content as you did at Rohit Shetty. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Keegan

Please stop fiddling with the photo while it is being discussed. I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest with that article. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I care only about wp:blp that is my vested interest. I will try at all times to place the best reflection of the subject without any consideration of conflicted editing. thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia comprises more than one policy. Socking, paid editing, conflicts of interest etc are others. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, In my interpretation of WP:blp - it overides all of your concerns about coi and involved editing. 14:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. Honestly, there is something odd going on here. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a neutral, I don't care about coi or involved , I suggest you read WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And I suggest that before you suggest things to me, you check out my contribution history. I'm not new to this and don't need inane suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about your contribution history. I am here to protect the living people in our articles , please read and accept wp:blp Govindaharihari (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

She doesn't need "protection" because there is no damage. You really do not understand BLP and until you do it would probably be better if you observe rather than act. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The better photo is the one we should insert. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted you yet again. Look, you are trying to bludgeon things in all sorts of ways and it doesn't help the process. For example, you opened an unnecessary thread at BLPN, you changed the format of the green image part-way through and completely without discussion, you insisted you were right without really taking into account anything other than the sockpuppet accounts. And so on. Slow down: no-one's life is at risk. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are a revert warrior, lol. There is a clear consensus not appeared on the talkpage, please just get over it and move on. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you do not self-revert, I'm going to find someone to block you. There is an open RFC. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Revertion notice of RYB Education

The article is about an organization rather than a person, and it is well-source. If you ask for speedy deletion, you will be regarded as a vandalism. It is you who will be blocked if you vandalize articles. --Yejianfei (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there - there is a section open at blp noticeboard where a wikipedia arbiter recommends deletion, have a look there. thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RYB_Education Govindaharihari (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Govindaharihari. 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)

• Voted - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rotherham

Hello, I have provided sources, the best of which is the BBC. Therefore unequivocally my edit should stand. Americatcp (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim

Hi,

The editor who keeps trying to include an extended paragraph about the Harvey Weinstein investigation on the Noah Oppenheim article has renewed his same request with a RfC vote. I have a declared COI and will not vote on the matter. I'd appreciate it very much if you could circle back to Talk:Noah Oppenheim and weigh in.

Thanks very much.BC1278 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

This was blatant canvassing and Govinadaharihari you should not have gone and !voted in response. Hm. I am gathering diffs to have BC1278 banned from WP and this will be part of the report. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I had made an edit regarding the content at the BLP noticeboard and and went from there with the link provided there to the discussion and evaluated the details in regards to wikipedia policies and guidelines and comment , my position there has and had nothing to do with anything or anyone else. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:CANVASS. Nothing you wrote is responsive to that policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I did not respond to thie message here on my talkpage, I responded from the BLP link I gave you. This is not important to me, please open whatever threads you want but I have little , nothing more to comment here in this regards, many thanks for your efforts and contributions to improve the wikipedia Jytdog. I will also comment Jytdog, that you are the only person in the discussion that supports this contents inclusion link to support/oppose comments Govindaharihari (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I just went and reviewed the WP: Canvas policy and it explicitly says you may notify, "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." WP:APPNOTE In this case, Govindaharihari initially participated in this exact discussion from a notice on BLP, then the same discussion was renewed for a vote. Thank you for weighing in.BC1278 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Weigh in on RFC?

Hi,

There is a new RFC vote regarding the phrasing of the Matt Lauer incident in the Noah Oppenheim article. Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content

You already expressed a strong opinion on the matter at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#Lauer_content, so I thought you might want to know about the vote.

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Just FYI, I notified every single editor who had participated on Talk for this article, without regards to their previous positions. I have reviewed WP: CANVASSING and this is perfectly acceptable.BC1278 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Canterbury Tail

Can you provide diffs to back up your statement there, please? Otherwise your statement is effectively a personal attack. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as the motion is failing to pass I won't waste my time searching past edits to find it, ill strike that part of my comment, Govindaharihari (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no diffs, are there? Swarm ♠ 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've not got the diff, no, it was a memory, I have retracted the comment now. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Really not a good idea to make serious, completely unsupported accusations on an Arbcom-related page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki gold

2017 - I dislike biased contributors, they are the wasteland of wp:npov and the destruction of the projects goals, a misguided attempt to use wikipedia to portray their personal bias, all they end up doing is making wikipedia a laughing stock. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)