The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk | contribs) →Disruptive behaviour: new section |
Zuggernaut (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Categories] <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Categories] <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Disruptive behaviour == |
== <s>Disruptive</s>Constructive behaviour == |
||
[[British Empire]] is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire]. So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
[[British Empire]] is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire]. So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I pointed out a problem with the maps in the article - they are inaccurate because they show [[Goa]], [[Daman]], [[Diu]] and [[Oman]] as parts of the British Empire when they were under Portuguese and French control well beyond the 1940s. I've then provided a possible solution to how the problem can be fixed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABritish_Empire&action=historysubmit&diff=386870078&oldid=386836612]. Our FAs need to meet the criterion of the finest article so I am trying to help you keep the FA status. You have ignored several questions from unique editors over several months about the maps including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AThe_British_Empire.png&action=historysubmit&diff=385024473&oldid=344779078#Colouring]. It is your behavior here that's disruptive. You've been [[wikihounding]] me for weeks to [[India]], [[Famine in India]], [[American Revolutionary war]] where you repeatedly violate a pillar of Wikipedia - [[civility|WP:Civility]] as has been pointed out by multiple different and unrelated editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&action=historysubmit&diff=386341296&oldid=386272401] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=386220890&oldid=386157558]. You've added POV tags to the India and Famine in India articles because the article asserted 37 million deaths from starvation during British rule. From this pattern of behavior, it is easy to see that you have an agenda on Wikipedia - to glorify the British Empire and stifle any information (even though it meets [[WP:Sources]] and other WP policies) that brings forward the negative aspects of the British Empire. Clearly it's your behavior that's the problem. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut#top|talk]]) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:07, 25 September 2010
Welcome
|
RE: Deshastha Brahmin
I;ve responded at your peer review page.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Maharashtra. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. the statement you have referenced to two books finds no mention in either. If you continue to add this without consensus you will be blocked —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your claim is wrong. Please check the sources properly and you will find the following statements per the citation: The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune. This is no original research. I have reported the matter to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Deshastha Brahmin due to your belligerent attitude and derogatory language used here.[1] Zuggernaut (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_dispute discussion. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- "The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune" - Nemade. Who is the "they"? clarify. thx. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Maharashtrian Bhakti saints has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced, orpahned article with no content other than a list of apparently non-notable people.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Svick (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
August 18 2010
STOP! Vandalising and spreading false info of your own or from unreliable websites in many wiki pages, like upanishad for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.80.122 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to one of those Islamic or christian fundamentalist who wants to spread false info against other faiths from unrelaiable source. STOP VANDALISING WIKI PAGES AND SPREADING HATRED OTHERS FAITHS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.
You were already warned many times by moderators for vandalising and spreading false info and hatred against other faiths from unreliable sources. Watch it.
TempUser1234567 comment added by TempUser1234567 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Standard Marathi debate
I was scanning through the debate on this topic at Talk:Maharashtra, and looking up the sources you have quoted. Among the sources, Nemade's book appears to be the most recent and comprehensive. I would like to read the text on pages 98-101 of the book to understand the context properly (c.f. all other sources that seem to be talking of standardization in context of the Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary). Unfortunately the book doesn't seem to available online. Would it be possible for you to scan and email me the relevant pages ? Don't hesitate to say no if this is not convenient since I can get the book from my library instead (may take a week), and am just trying the lazyman's option first. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to the discussion! It's gotten a little lengthy and may have been hard to navigate in some sections - sorry about that. There are actually two distinct dictionaries being referred to. I provided a source (Bloch) to bolster support for the Molesworth dictionary after User:Redtigerxyz raised doubts about it ("Some 1831 dictionary..."). Bloch also indicates that the dictionary is still current. The other dictionary is A Dictionary of the Maratha Language. Unfortunately, I am unable to scan and send you the pages but I have typed out relevant content from the book which you can find here.User:Zuggernaut I am using content from pages 101 and 139 only. The book is still worth getting from the library if you are interested in the topic. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Upanishads
Hello Zuggernaut, I don't think adhering to one style of citation is as important as keeping those quotes in the footnotes. They are among the best pieces of information in the article. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deshastha
You wrote, Shakher59, you have uploaded several pictures on Wikipedia, some of which are being used in Deshastha Brahmin. It'll be a lot of help if you can provide more information about the pictures. Things like location of the pictures, when they were taken, the occasion, whether they are Deshastha Rigvedi or Yajurvedi and perhaps their last names, etc will be of great help. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The pictures' title has the period when they were taken. If I give names of the people, the photographs will be immediately deleted for being of non-notables. These pictures are there simply to show what deshastha people look like to the average wikipedia reader who would have no idea as to what a deshastha person looks like. That is why I am not happy about the picture of contemporary deshastha couple being deleted. I don't see anybody else putting a new picture of contemporary deshastha family either. All my B & W photos are from 1950s and 1970s. Having a color picture does make sense so if you have one, please add it to the article. By the way, all the people in the photographs are deshastha, mostly yajurvedi. The munj ceremony is of a yajurvedi family.Shakher59 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I deleted your content "disgraced and ruined...." because Arthur Crawford on page 127 of your reference in the footnote only alludes to Bajeerao disgracing one deshastha man for having a copy of Sahyadree khand and not the whole deshstha community. Also I have noticed that in recent edits,a lot of people including you and at times myself, have started relying on free books available on google as references. These are very old books by western authors and don't always have a neutral point of view. Use these references but even in the text mention that "according to so and so..... That way the reader can make his or her own conclusions rather than going through the reference list.74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi anon (74.9.96.122), Thanks for pointing out the detail - I have fixed the Crawford citation to accurately state that one reputed Deshastha Brahmin was disgraced. While promoting the article Upanishads as a GA, my reviewer pointed out that it is not a good practice to name a reference in the article [2]. The use of Google books is quite helpful as long as we stick to WP:Sources and particularly WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiable. I have also provided another citation in addition to Jadunath Sarkar regarding the social war. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Jaggannath, Please provide solid references that all deshasthas are the original brahmin inhabitants of maharashtra. the reference below on Nasik brahmins speculates that Madhyandin yajurvedis came from Gujarat within last 600 years. [3]74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- More than 95% of this article is about Deshasthas. You are welcome to start a new and separate article on Yajurvedis if you want to focus on the differences rather than the similarities. The current citations already substantiate the claim. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If current claims substantiate the claim then please cite it after "original"74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion to improve the article. Feel free to improve the article in places you think we can provide accurate information. Please consider signing up and getting a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Young Mr. Jaggannath, Send me your email address and I will send you the image of the article74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at Burden of evidence [4] Go on read [5]. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources and that does not mean I don't have complete faith in the claims of the article.
- Per burden of evidence, provide the full citation. The following minimum details are missing from your citation:
- Full author names. done
- The exact page number. The current range 241-262 is too large for the simple one line used in the article. Can I conclude that you are not from a research or scientific background ? this paper ( Mastana et al ) is not a review but original research involving blood samples taken from the four groups. most of the pages are tables of data. from what I have read about Wikipedia policy on verifiability, I don't think I have to quote the results verbatim.
- Provide the issue number of Annals of Human biology. VOL. 21.
- Provide the month of publication of that issue. why ?
- The content we are talking is tiny. Provide the 2-3 lines of conclusion that supports your claim. You can type it out in the talk space of the article. I would be very surprised if the authors do not use the word immigrant to describe the Parsi.
- I am removing the entire line from article space as we need to establish verifiability of the source to satisfaction before we can add it to the article per WP:Sources This is as bonafide as it gets.
- Suggested solution: given the universal knowledge/multiple sources stating that the Parsi are an immigrant community, consider adding "immigrant" before Parsi and we can consider this closed. Your explanation of Paris being native in the talk space of the article is WP:OR
- Consider signing up and getting an account, go to preferences and add your e-mail address. We can then exchange e-mails. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) No, the authors don't use that term and so there is no need to. If you want to take it to higher level so be it. I have just started with one of your reference on "Social war" and you had put your own POV. So if you want to verify my reference, then get ready for a fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article!
74.9.96.122 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure go ahead with "fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article" It will only help make the article better. The more errors you can find, the better! Please consider using a colon to indent your responses. And please also consider signing up to get a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion about Khandoba worship section is moved to Talk:Khandoba#Worship_section. Please leave your additional comments there. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI
I have raised the fact you have been canvassing over the India/British Empire articles at the Admins notice board here. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I'm going Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism before actually talking to the founders and co-owners... But before that, I'll make a sadbox out of the history section and present it for discussion and then let's see what happens from there...
thanks :)
Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- We are attempting to do just that :D ... I've more amendments to suggest :P
Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for copyedit. Moving {{copyedit}} to article as convention. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FYI
[6] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
DisruptiveConstructive behaviour
British Empire is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here [7]. So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I pointed out a problem with the maps in the article - they are inaccurate because they show Goa, Daman, Diu and Oman as parts of the British Empire when they were under Portuguese and French control well beyond the 1940s. I've then provided a possible solution to how the problem can be fixed [8]. Our FAs need to meet the criterion of the finest article so I am trying to help you keep the FA status. You have ignored several questions from unique editors over several months about the maps including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [9]. It is your behavior here that's disruptive. You've been wikihounding me for weeks to India, Famine in India, American Revolutionary war where you repeatedly violate a pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility as has been pointed out by multiple different and unrelated editors [10] [11]. You've added POV tags to the India and Famine in India articles because the article asserted 37 million deaths from starvation during British rule. From this pattern of behavior, it is easy to see that you have an agenda on Wikipedia - to glorify the British Empire and stifle any information (even though it meets WP:Sources and other WP policies) that brings forward the negative aspects of the British Empire. Clearly it's your behavior that's the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)