This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmritasyaPutra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Long time! Hope you are doing well. The last time when we spoke to each other was about conducting the GAR of this article. After you cited lack of time, i rewrote it partially, got it c/ed by GOCE and updated it completely. It was nominated on 15 December 2014 and once, a vandal created the GAR page with very short content because of which it was deleted. At this stage, after waiting for months, i believe that you would either review the article soon or leave it for once and all, as i remember you saying that this article was in your mind. Please do confirm you intentions soon. Thank you. Hoping a positive response, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that you are active since two days i posted this message and no reply till now. Hence i assume that you are not at all interested to take up a GAR of this article as you promised to do so. Sorry for troubling you. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will not revert again, you may mention in edit summary too. Since a valid English name was replaced with an apparent gibberish I had reverted. --AmritasyaPutraT08:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I've been working on your copyediting request for the Sanskrit page. I'm not quite done yet, but I've run across a few issues that I've commented on in the talk page there; notably, the possibility of separating more clearly "historical" information from "modern usage," and a request for more information for the Phonology section (I think it should include a list of the language's phonemes).
The work you've done on this page is great, and I'll keep working on the copyedit. In the meantime, if you could find some time to look into these things I'd appreciate it! — 2macia22 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The page has no indication of notability; there are any number of religious leaders in south Asia, and the content does not demonstrate why this one deserves an article. The tone is also unencyclopedic.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayyala somayajulu ganapathi sastry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I use it sometimes. I used a commercial solution for sometime but it was not good enough, purchased and learnt INSCRIPT keyboard but I 'feel' I am still quite slow, would like first hand input from active editors. --AmritasyaPutraT09:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller on your response I have marked it for CSD. I did not try to make the note offline. Your (and others') Comments are always welcome. If you may see my point of view, I consider the block to be a genuine mistake which I have put in the past. --AmritasyaPutraT17:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't exactly recall having interacted with you. How are you? I just finished hosting a dinner here at home. So 'am at leisure for a chat! --AmritasyaPutraT17:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on my talk page.
Thank you for leaving the comment on my page. A you can see from Hirsi's talk page, I am already using her talk page frequently. I request you to also add any relevant responses on the talk page if you have anything specific to say or before undoing my edits. Remember we are trying to provide accurate and verifiable info to WP users.NiceAdam (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Brief question
Hi, I see that you've been unblocked after 3 months. I am curious, though, was this because you turned out not to be OccultZone, or are you starting over on this account? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not OccultZone. I have one (abandoned) account other than this one (AmritasyaPutra) having three edits. I have perhaps two or three edits as IP from a couple of years back. --AmritasyaPutraT07:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Welcome back; I hope we can get along better this time around. Considering the circumstances, and considering this decision, might I suggest getting rid of this? It makes it harder to assume good faith when that thing is still sitting in your user pages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your intention. You should know that I think I made good faith advances a number of times only to be baited by you. I survived you. I can recall having noted explicitly on wiki that I am steering clear of you. Yet I have continuously observed you assume bad faith consistently towards me in action like here or here. Nevertheless I can confidently guarantee if you make amends in action I will reciprocate appropriately. I have very short memory for disputes. You know me very well, I honor my words. (For example, in action a welcome is a welcome, a suggestion in same breath alleging that I assume bad faith, when I haven't even interacted with you, is actually an ironic reflection of your faith). And, this is written in good faith -- is a good start in my opinion. --AmritasyaPutraT17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M. S. Golwalkar. 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.
Well, things have improved here on Wikipedia while you were away. We don't any more do re-reverts until consensus is reached on the talk page. I think you need to get used to the new ways. Hence the template. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It is same old policies. We just learnt how to practise them better. There is very little edit-warring going on on India pages right now. All that you need to know about policies are in the template above. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have listed Bharat Ratna for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. You had conducted the GA review for the article so I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments here. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, AmritasyaPutra. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 06:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
How will I feel/react if you revert me despite clear initiative to communicate and wait on article talk page. And then call me names, tag me, revert me?
Can you check what I wrote on talk page and find what is incorrect in what I have said? Your feeling that it is wrong is acceptable (personal opinion), but not venturing to confirm your conviction and sticking to it adamantly without validation says more about your character.
Your friend bringing in things other than the content in question, abusing on talk page. How fair is this approach? Do you consider it fair game and honest discussion?
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
