User talk:India Gate

Welcome

Hello, India Gate, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph (a.k.a. thunderboltz). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message; or add {{helpme}} to this page.
thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I hope to be learning much and contributing much. I am stunned Deepu Jospeh by the amount of work you have done on the Wiki India Gate 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. Looking forward to more edits by you. Cheers! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

If you want to claim it is anything, but a diploma mill give a source!

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. CaliEd 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much CaliEd for the less than warm welcome given to me. I am new guy among the editors, and I think you are supposed to only "correct" me whereas you have issued a "warning" and even a "threat" for a SINGLE act of correction I did on a single essay. I feel you are being unfair to me. I also think you are not supposed to threaten anyone. A single act of correction cannot be considered vandalism, I suppose, unless I write something very bad. I wrote only something good.

I am interested in anything Indian, and have already made contribution on a number of subjects. You, on the other hand, have been chasing only Christian institutions, and it seems you felt adrenalin rushing when I made a correction in an instution that is Christian.

Kindly notice, I am not a Christain. I am an Indian. I only made one correction about an Indian institution and the Indian systems about which I know well. You do not have to be unfair to me or you do not have to bully me. Just a suggestion would have done. Also, I am interested only in a fair representation of Indian institutions, and I am not interested in your religion that is not mine.

I also notice that you are making all your corrections Americo-centric. Please notice that USA is not the only country in the world and the essays in Wikipedia needs to represent all the countries and their policies in a fair manner.

Kindly help me, but do not threaten or bully me. India Gate 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you felt bullied. We have a policy against being mean to newbies. I hope that you two can resolve your differences, but if you need help doing so please check out our dispute resolution page.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more fully, I want to let you know that, speaking as an admin, your edits to the article in question don't warrant the response given to you. That is a templatized warning for "blatant vandalism." You were not doing that. This is a content dispute that should be discussed civilly on the talk page. If you need a neutral third party, I'm here for you two.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a message for CaliEd as well. He(?) also used "rv." (revert) as an edit summary to describe the insertion of what seems to me to be extreme bias. This is also unacceptable. I will direct him to the talk page so that you two can work it out. I'm sorry you have had to deal with this sort of thing so early in your time here, but outbursts do happen here. Thank you for staying calm and cool.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for your help. I am a workaholic and would love to remain calm and make some substantial contributions to the Wiki. I welcome advice, correction, and guidance if my work is ever substandard or biased. India Gate 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CaliEd you have reverted my editing of Trinity School of Apologetics and Theology to a previous edit. However, I wish to submit the following to you:

Trinity is an Indian institution, whereas your revert is totally US-centric. This does not do justice to an Indian institution as it is being seen through an American lense, making the revert a POV that does not do justice to an Indian institution. Each institution, culture, and custom should be judged in the light of how it is perceived in it own country. Thus I propose to revise this (but no American institution) that you have edited. However, I will wait for a day or two so you can tell me if I am doing wrong by correcting a western-centric assessment to an Indian-centric assessment with additional comments to show the difference between how the institution is perceived in India as well as in USA, and thus making it an NPOV article. India Gate 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sources:

The UNESCO list of accredited schools in India.
Indian Department of Education directory of higher education, which lists accredited schools.
University Grants Commission list of oversight groups.

The India University Grants Commission Act 1956 explains,

"the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, or a State Act, or an Institution deemed to be University or an institution specially empowered by an Act of the Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Thus, any institution which has not been created by an enactment of Parliament or a State Legislature or has not been granted the status of a Deemed to be University, is not entitled to award a degree."[1]

The Indian department makes clear: "It is emphasized that these fake institutions have no legal entity to call themselves as University/Vishwvidyalaya and to award ‘degree’ which are not treated as valid for academic/employment purposes."[2]

Seems cut and dry to me. Degrees without government recognition are not " valid for academic/employment purposes." CaliEd 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your sources, you have given none. CaliEd 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. None of your observations apply to religious education in India.

I have been going through all the edits you made, and notice that some kind of a battle is going on among Christian sects about which of their institutions is accredit and which is not. I use the term "battle" becuase you describe your work as "hit".

My interest is in India. I am not a Christian. I was drawn into this battle when I made edits to an Indian institution which happned to be Christian. However, I do not with to be part of this battle. You Christians are welcome to fight with each other and "hit" each other (your word) or destroy each other. I will confine myself to making contributions about India and other subjects which are of my primary Interest. I am proud of my motherland. India Gate 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your religion or nationalism. I want you to back up "None of your observations apply to religious education in India" with WP:RS. CaliEd 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself describe your work as "hiting" and therefore I feel I would only be wasting my time. More so because you are "hitting" (your word) Christian institutions on the Wiki. I was drawn accidentally into making edits on one such institution. As long as you are trying to "hit" no amount of evidence would convince you. Moreoever, I am moving to my main area of interest which is India. I might come back to you you when you beging "editing" instead of "hitting". India Gate 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, I have never described anything as "hiting;" you are making things up. You have only editted one school on wikipedia (Trinity), you keep mentioning religion, etc. I think you are the person (or people) who have been removad data on the related pages.

As I wrote above, three days ago, "If you want to claim it is anything, but a diploma mill give a source!" You have not done so. You don't want to offer sources, that's fine- don;t expect the page to change though. CaliEd 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I have never described anything as "hiting;". Fortunately, the Wiki keeps a record of all what one has written. As I said, I just happened to edit one Indian school and "met" you only to realize that some religious infighting was going on and I was caught in the midest of crossfire. I do not wish to be part of it. I do not wish to make any claims about things which are not part of my main interest. Do hit whatever you wish to "hit" (your word, and there is a record). I am no more interested in your explots related to Christian institutions, and this is my last post on that topic. India Gate 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fortunately, the Wiki keeps a record of all what one has written;" good, show me where. CaliEd 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation and countering systemic bias

We have groups called wikiprojects that organize themselves around a central theme. I suggest you make contact with the following groups and ask for their opinion.

If you aren't able to get something worked out, another approach to take is an article content request for comment.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it.

Whatever your intentions, alluding to conversations with lawyers can get you in hot water. Your conversations with others are not verifiable; you need to cite reliable secondary sources. Several of your recent edits are original research and are likely to be reverted. Just zis Guy you know? 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was unable to convey my intention properly. What I meant was that "I did an investigation and am posting on the basis of that. More information and documentation will be added soon". I hope it is clear now. I contact lawyers for my personal confirmation not for any legal action, nor did I imply anything more than what I wrote. Your letter is more in the nature of a threat. I am sure you are not supposed to do that to me. You are bound by a code of honour as much as I am.

Since you have responded in a threatening manner to a discussion I had with another person, I will quote the full statement in the next paragraph so you can check if I threatened anyone:

Quote: "It seemed to me that two groups of editors have come up with conflicting information. I therefore called up the education department and also my lawyer, and based upon the information supplied by them I have recociled the information from both the sides. I have also included reference to the government sites which the officers in the education department brough to my notice. I would want our Indian institutions, culture, religions, etc. represented properly and NPOV. India Gate 03:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"

Quote: "Dear MmM in the entry on ICAATS I am sorry I should have removed the clause about GAAP that was introduced by another editor. As I wrote earlier (see discussion related to that article) I had a discussion with several Education Department authorities and they all have pointed to the legal status of ICAATS. They have also pointed to the fact that the government routinely provides certificates to ICAATS accredited non Indian students to enable them to transfer credits. Thus the legality issue has been settled by the governemtn. I have therefore removed the statment made by an earlier editor. (I think he was writing from an American perspective. I am an Indian, and write from an Indian perspective). In fact some more of the stateements will be edited in the light of my recent investigations with the government and leagal agencies here in India."

Of course if any of my posts need to be reverted, it is ok. I am here to learn and each piece of info which other editors pass on to me is a learning experience. I hope I am more clear now.

I also want to record my observation here that it seem many of you Christian editors or editors from the so-called Christian countries seem to be having a mutual fued. I am not part of that. I am interested only in truth and fairness about "Indian" institutions. So I hope you will not drag me into this mutual fued seemingly among Christians.

Here is the insulting terminology you used about me "Crazy nut is talking about his lawyer and adding uncited things" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG

I am sure you are supposed to be civil to other editors and not mock them. Perhaps you are more senior on the rung, but this is definitely bad and uncivil behaviour on your part calling me Crazy nut. India Gate 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my note to you was in the tone of a warning, not a threat. I have no need to threaten you, I can simply block you from editing. The remarks on my Talk page were not written by me. Your investigation remains unverifiable unless referenced from reliable secondary sources. All clear now? Guy 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your 'explanation'. Unless a person indulges in vandalism, a warning to that person is a threat. There is no case of vandalism against me. I simply made corrections to one essay related to an Indian institution, and gave some information in the talk page, that is all. If the citation was not sufficient or absent, you could have added the citration needed tag. Instead you issued me what was a plain threat. I assume Wiki administrators are not supposed to bully people. India Gate 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guggi the magical fruit

Just a friendly reminder, the vandalism warning goes on the author's talk page, not the main page of the article. Wildthing61476 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a mistake I discovered immediatly after posting. I will be correcting the error India Gate 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal proof

Hi - I see your application for vandalproof, it's very unlikely to be success at present. One of the selection criteria is a mainspace edit count of 250, you current have 98.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=India+Gate

--Charlesknight 08:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do understand your concern. My contribution has been mainly in welcoming and tutoring newcomers, which does not go to the mainspace but rather to talk pages. I will wait for the right time, though I have been able to spot many vandalisms to correct, and also to report some to administrators where their intervention was needed. Thanks once again for your courteous reply. India Gate 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello India Gate! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

New deal for page patrollers

Hi India Gate,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]