Hi DreamLinker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Please stop. Content disputes need to be resolved on the talk page of the article. See also WP:DR for further suggestions. Please note that I am not watching your talk page. Any replies directed to me should include a ping. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Hi Ad Orientem. I am not sure if you actually looked into the details of what is happening on Yashwant Sinha. As I explained here [1], This isn't really a content dispute. The IP/new users are constantly returning and adding back all that one sided material to a BLP. They are using multiple IPs to revert me. The statements in the article are weird and biased for an encyclopaedia article. For example
"Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to come up with a defensive article by Jayant Sinha on the same evening to safeguard the failures of his government."
I find it weird that reporting on RFPP ironically leads to me getting an edit warring warning (I do understand what is edit warring). I have reverted only once per day and today was the only time I did it twice, that too after reporting it for more than half a day on this page. Discussing on the talk page is fine, but from my experience hardy anyone replies, much less random IPs (instead IPs use the talk page as a forum [2] to post random rants). Are we supposed to let statements such as the one above linger on biographical articles? In any case, I will no longer be reverting any content added to the article anymore unless I receive a clarification.--DreamLinker (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest posting a note on any relevant wiki-projects and ask interested editors to keep an eye on the article. For now I have reverted the most recent edit by an obvious SPA/SOCK new account and protected the page for 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ConradSallian. I came across that AfD because it flashed on my watchlist. I searched multiple well known PC magazine archives as well as regular newspapers before voting and I was unable to find much coverage about remote utilities. I even searched using the former name but couldn't find much. Notability is a policy of Wikipedia itself. As for the list, it is possible that there are many non-notable entries. I did not create or edit it. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia so I don't see how blaming me because I did not look at one of them is useful.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DreamLinker. Ok then, sorry for the rage. We'll be working on getting more coverage. That would indeed be more productive.
Hi DreamLinker. Just noticed you also deleted remote utilities from the comparison page on remote desktop software. Why do you keep deleting even the mentions of this product? What's so wrong with Remote Utilities that you think that it doesn't deserve being mentioned even in the comparison table with hundreds of other very similar tools?
@I am joker: I am not the one adding any personal commentary. I am simply removing what you have added [4] which is neither neutral nor well cited. Please see the note I have left on your talk page [5] about discussing. You are welcome to discuss on the talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, DreamLinker. 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.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niazi Express. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ammarpad I am not sure how this is canvassing when the link you posted itself says "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" is an example of appropriate notification.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Krishna Kolhi
On 8 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Krishna Kolhi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Krishna Kolhi is the first Hindu Dalit woman to be elected to the Senate of Pakistan? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Krishna Kolhi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi! DreamLinker, as you already know that you have removed Bhagini from the article Sister Nivedita, it is for sure that she was referred as Bhagini Nivedita. Even movies, educational institutes dedicated to her are named Bhagini Nivedita. If you are still not sure, you can check the references one by one. So it's a humble request from me, to revert your edits.
Thanks! SouravDas1998t@lk to me?05:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Souravdas1998. Thank you for letting me know. I had started a discussion at [[7]] in case anyone objected. If you don't mind, could you also paste this comment over there? I would be happy to continue the discussion there.--DreamLinker (talk)
StuMagz
Thanks for your input to the StuMagz AfD. It was interesting to read the view of someone with more experience of India. Personally, I've never been, but have learned a lot through reviewing India related articles. I like to take each article on its own merits. It will be interesting to see the outcome on this one. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DreamLinker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Hello, DreamLinker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Please help update the STRING TRANSPORT page with valid links
I'm really sorry if you felt the changes I made to the STRING TRANSPORT page were inappropriate and I'm glad you were so quick to help me with it. The changes that were made before I did anything this year involved the removal of the 'Please help with valid links' warning which had been removed. Thanks to you that is back again. But in changing the main page you've not only removed the updates I made, which I can understand, but valid information about an accident in the Belorussian facility. Please assure me you're not involved with the scam yourself and help update the information that is included with real scientific references external to Yunitsky himself who seems to have an extremely questionable history. Also I'd greatly appreciate it if you could find the time to let me know how the changes I made were inappropriate and how you think I could update the page in a correct manner. I really don't want to break any rules but there has to be a way to better inform the public about this scam which has actually influenced innocent people I know in Belgium. Any advice at all would be appreciated. I've included all the most valid information I could find in the Talk page. Thanks again for your input.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 17:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)
@Zaxander: My apologies. I reverted your edits because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we are not supposed to place notices like "this is a scam". Encyclopaedia should be factual. What we should do instead is to use high quality sources, such as peer reviewed journals for referencing information (instead of using information from the company website, like this article does). I actually reverted all the way down to a version which was relatively clean. For example, originally the page said is a concept of an elevated light rail transportation system... while the newer version said is a transportation system consisting of an elevated light rail using. There is a difference between a "concept" (an idea which may not have been practically implemented) and an actual system (which tends to imply something which has been accepted already/has some implementations). --DreamLinker (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About editing Wikipedia, I will add a list of links to your talk. I read these links when I joined Wikipedia myself and it helped me to understand how to write articles (in a factual neutral tone) and cite references.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: You did absolutely the right thing by changing the article back to how it was. I was actually reacting to the fact that the 'help update problematic self-referencing' warning had mysteriously disappeared. Your reversal of my changes actually resulted in this warning being returned so your edits actually ended up being more reassuring than disconcerting. I was still worried about people being incorrectly informed so I decided to reach out to you for help. I'm glad I did. Doing this was, however, a risk because affairs like this just help to prove how good scammers are at scamming. And remember that this misinformation has been present for over a decade and I haven't really been able to do much about it apart from my inclusion of a reference to an FSMA article after having my request for the article's removal rejected. If you were, in fact, a scammer you could have just banned me from posting anything (I'm obviously glad you're not). I'm actually lucky that you did make the change so quickly. The scammers behind the misinformation could have responded very negatively to my changes if they got there first. It all resulted from me being genuinely scared about the abuse of Wikipedia for the specific profit of Russian scammers. Thanks, in any case, for your quick response and your extended references to Wikipedia protocol on my talk page.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 21:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander[reply]
@Zaxander: I am sorry, I had to revert your changes again. The reason is, even if you believe this is a scam/ponzi scheme, Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources and it needs to be WP:NPOV. As for dead references, we should not remove information simply because the references are not available.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker:Of course you're right. If I want to achieve something useful it'll have to be with someone else's help. Won't make the same mistake again. But if claims are unsupported by valid references how can you justify keeping them? How do you solve a problem like this? If I want to make any more changes I'll check them first with someone else (like you). Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 18:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) [reply]
@DreamLinker: Thanks on the beforehand for helping me with this. I'll start with the 'external links' and we'll go from there. All the links included are self-referential. They refer to sites which contain the same content. They are all self-promotional. Unfortunately they are also filled with - dare I say it - outrageous unsupported claims that the real references in the article refute. It seems to me like including so many links to the same content is blatant self-promotion. Am I right about this? I did the following: I included a single reference to an external site, but also a link to a site which explains how the 'financing schemes' work and attempts to get other real justification for these claims. So that means only two links. Here's how it looked after I made the changes: ==External links==
Do you consider the multiple links to unreliable sources problematic? If you think it's a problem too, how would you solve it? I obviously need help with this.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
@Zaxander: Thank you. Generally the external links is only meant for official website of the organisation. I don't think it would be proper to include this link [8] at least in the external links (mainly behindmlm.com itself seems to be like self published source). Of course, we shouldn't have too many links about the company either. I have removed the eco-park link as it doesn't seem to be functional anyway. It's late today and I am a bit tired. I will review the article tomorrow again.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did notice that. After I read it I've been putting the four curly apostrophes (~) and following them with my username 'Zaxander'. My user name is unnecessary right? Got it now! Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems to place my whole personal name and doesn't include a talk link. I just sign by ending with four tildes right? I wonder why this is happening. Sleep well and thanks again. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)
@DreamLinker:The scandal in Lithuania is really complicated and it's driving me crazy. I'd appreciate your help with this. But I included on your talk page detailed information about what I'd discovered about this scandal. I can see now that this is an inappropriate place to discuss these issues. I've moved it to the talk page of the article itself and I apologise for polluting your page with so much information. Needless to say when I was writing it in a genuine claim for your help on an issue you'd reverted, I didn't know it would get so complicated or would become so long. I assume that you'll approve of the changes I did end up making and help me by updating the information I researched from verifiable sources or the sources themselves rather than just reverting it to how it was. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Concerning some small changes: References 3 (highlighted by user Dlthewave) and 4 were unverifiable. I translated the verifiable Italian article "the flying tram company which has never realized a project" and it contains all this information, so I placed it at the end of the paragraph. Kind regards from Belgium, Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see the Italian article is the only verifiable source that includes information about crowdfunding as used by the SkyWay group and how it works. The FSMA article doesn't mention it so I'll include this reference in the changes you made to the opening paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker:Changes to the opening paragraph I wouldn't try anymore to apply on my own. As it is it seems to me misleading, primarily because it doesn't specify the difference between the concept and the business companies and suggests that "SkyWay Capital" is the only company funding it. There are many different companies. Here's my suggestion:
String transport is a general term referring to the concept of an elevated light railtransportation system invented by the Russian engineer Anatoly Yunitsky. It is also known as Rail SkyWay, SkyWay and the Yunitskiy Transport System. A wide array of companies registered with names like "SkyWay Capital Ltd." and "Eurasian Rail Skyway Ltd." in London and the Virgin Islands have been using this concept to justify their funding.
Many of the verifiable references mention Yunitsky and his scientific claims, as well as the many companies. Some of these companies like "SkyWay Capital" don't seem to directly involve Yunitsky, but other companies who have Yunitsky as their director also use crowdfunding and other forms of illegal unregistered financing. Maybe we could finish the paragraph with a sentence like "Yunitsky himself is either associated with or the director of these companies." Let me know what you think. In any case I'll find a reliable reference for the opening paragraph as it stands and any changes you may bring to it. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: Thank you for including that Italian source. I think stating "Yunitsky himself is either associated with or the director of these companies." may not be possible unless a reliable source had made that conclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to state the existing facts reported by publications, but not derive conclusions. In my opinion this would be hard. Sorry. I didn't get much time today, will have to look at it tomorrow or day after again.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: I translated the complete article from Italian, and I checked the other reliable sources. Here it mentions all the different companies registered in the Virgin Islands, and states definitvely that their director is Anatoly Yunitskiy. I've checked the other references and they all state that too. If other people are implicated it's anecdotal probably created to confuse the matter. As suggested by user Dlthewave, SkyWay and Yunitsky are one and the same. In light of this article it's safe to end to opening paragraph with the following text: Yunitsky himself directs these companies. I'll include the Italian reference. Thanks for your reply.Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker:re: external links. I checked the 'New Atlas' link. It only contains anecdotal opinions, unverified facts and propaganda films from the website. It seems unnecessary and misleading to include a reference to a site that contains the same information as the other links which are entirely self-promotional. I did check the 'New Atlas' site for media bias and I couldn't find any red flags. In fact there were sites which claimed that 'New Atlas' provided objective scientific facts. So now I'm worried that removing this link will be a problem. Please change it back if you think it's worth including an external link to a site that may seem to contain valid scientific info but in actual fact contains nothing but hearsay, anecdotal evidence and SkyWay propaganda. There's enough of that already. Also: it actually really helps when you reverse my changes. Hopefully however I am learning not to make the same mistakes. I understand your time is limited. I've just got a lot of time I can spend on making sure this is right. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: I was especially careful with the changes to the second and third paragraphs, but they needed verifiable references. In the third paragraph, what the company claims doesn't actually mean anything, and even if it did there is no reference to even an unverified source about where they make this claim. I tried to carefully reword this with references to what has actually been documented with a Memorandum of Understanding reference to a Wikipedia site. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker:It must look like I've made lots of changes. I tried, however, to make very small changes and describe each change. I would clean up the references already to multiple sources, but I fear someone will change it all back anyway and that'd be a lot trouble for nothing. Wishing you the best –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: I found out that you'll only be able to revert my changes 3 times before being blocked. Is this true? If so - please just tell me how many changes you want me to revert and I'll do it myself.
@Zaxander: Thank you for your kind words. I am generally OK with your change, just that I will try to search for more references about Yunitsky being the director of these companies.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: The user Kmarinas86 has added a whole section filled with unverifiable references. I can tell you that the Russian references are just copies of propaganda created by the SkyWay group. This is unfortunately a user who is willing to start and maintain editing wars (I looked at their talk history) to support pseudoscience and they've been banned in the past. Any advice on what I should do would be appreciated. If I can do anything to help let me know. But I've already informed this user that thanks to my familiarity with Russian I was able to check every the extended list of references. I told them that unverifiable references in English or Russian. But they went and used them nonetheless in complete new sections. I can't really do anymore than this without advice on how to proceed. Thanks on the beforehand. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:, I see that you have reverted now and I agree with your revert. However, I think the removal of "Yunitsky being the director of these companies" is OK. We need to be careful of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, which is why I recommended that it would be good to search for references which actually make that conclusion. In addition, let's comment on the content instead of the contributor. I have the article on my watch list and I am monitoring it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is very confusing. I was sure that many articles said clearly that he was the director. In the following link, for example, says he is the founder and promoter. But that is not the same. I wait for your wisdom on this. You're my hero. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker:I'm glad to know you're keeping an eye on things. I was worried because I couldn't actually 'revert' the changes by 'Kmarinas86' one by one because there were so many of them, and I've never actually 'reverted' anyone's changes before. But I finally just looked at the new paragraphs closely and the references were so problematic that I had no problem justifying their removal paragraph by paragraph They included instagram photos, youtube films, copies of contracts uploaded as images to commons (which is as you say weird) and SkyWay websites. That was it. I invited any users to propose new content in the 'Construction' sub-heading on the talk page with links to verifiable references. Was this a good idea? There was one link which had actual text in it, so I included it on the talk page under a new heading inviting proposals for consensus assessment. But this website is called 'stringer'. How can you tell if it's a good link? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Okay - I translated the verified article in Lithuanian. I'll include a copy of this on my talk page. The title is clear - Bank of Lithuania: signs of fraud in the activities of A. Yunitskiy promising "air trains". The article is very specific about research it has done and it is scathingly critical of Yunitskiy. No one else is implicated. Furthermore it states that Yunitsky is the only shareholder in "Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd." registered in London and Lithuania. He is implicated specifically in every paragraph by the head of the regulated market supervision division of the Bank of Lithuania. Yunitskiy himself has "established four companies in London with similar names". If he is responsible for founding these companies and is their only shareholder, what is he? I think that's the problem. Anyone can be the director of a company; it's just a title. But maybe it's unproblematic to say the following at the end of the first paragraph -
"Yunitskiy himself established, runs and owns the companies in the SkyWay group." [Lithuanin ref. here]
I finally decided on "Yunitskiy himself founded and owns these companies". I wanted to use 'manages' because the Lithuanian article certainly implies that he runs or manages the company only because he is the only one they mention. But the don't specifically say that. Good compromise? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I've included a new sub-heading where we can start collecting real verifiable references to trade fairs and other such events where physical examples of the technology have been presented. There are a few: the governmental summit in the UAE and the 'EcoFest' in August 2018 in Belarus at their own park. There has to be new sub-headings that distinguish such trade fairs and summits, but what should it be called? 'Technology events'? Also all recent verifiable resources clearly implicate Yunitskiy as not only the inventor but also the figure-head, director and instigator of SkyWay companies and events. It's actually hard to find one that doesn't mention him in some capacity. Your opinion matters to me because you helped me so much to not make mistakes in the past. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
edit warring
hi, you and fowler are trying to manipulate the article Architecture of India by removing tons of data from indian architecture history and are not embracing my edits and you are declaring that vandalism, while questioning the other article which incorporates the data removed as a 'fork what is your agenda here? Zombie gunner (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie gunner The issue with your edits is that you are not trying to get consensus and instead constantly publishing your changes. This is called edit warring. I have open discussion threads but you don't seem to reply or discuss before editing. We work by cooperating here and a discussion is essential for achieving it.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this goes both ways, if you want to reach consensus, it should have been reached before a major chunk of the article was removed in the first place. That was done without consensus, you moved by history article to draft without consensus, and declared it as a fork article despite i had already mentioned that if such major parts were to be removed, there should be a separate article to compensate for that. Now you are edit warring on the titles which addresses your fork argument by moving the timeline to the history article and keep architecture of india according to your wish. Even that is not an acceptable compromise, so you just want to implement your own will Zombie gunner (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The version which you or fowler reverted was not my version it was there since 2017, as for my version, i was trying to engage another user who objected it based on certain copy editing. Zombie gunner (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you were the IP who added all that content. However, you did not obtain consensus to add that. Now you are trying to add all of it back. That's where you need to seek consensus. Please also let me know if you were previously blocked on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dont try to be judgemental, i can also ask the similar question regarding your absence from editing in the architecture of india article, you seem to have appeared today suddenly with the appearance of fowler, you seem to appear as his meat puppet. If you had issues with my editing, you could have raised that months ago, you seem to have appeared with the Fowler, neither you or fowler has any history in this article prior to today. What's your agenda? Zombie gunner (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been removed, "Naik states that it is permissible to beat one's wife "gently". He argues that "as far as the family is concerned, a man is the leader. So, he has the right", but he should beat his wife "lightly".[1] He also said[2] that Muslims have the right to rape their female slaves[3][1][4] where he referred to "prisoners of war" as slaves.[5]"
References
^ abCite error: The named reference hp10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Hsien Loong; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. — 2nd revert
Your recent editing history at Lee Hsien Loong shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Next will be 3rd revert without discussion. 111.65.60.237 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Thanks for the appreciation of my work and joining with some fresh perspective I am glad that you are taking out time for giving a detailed response. Although the older discussion has elongated, but it will be very helpful if you can go through the points the previous AfD contributors have made. I have already said all I had to say. This appears to be one of the (if not the most) strangest AfD experience I had.--DBigXrayᗙ19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DBigXray, that discussion is probably the longest deletion discussion I have seen :D I particularly appreciate you bringing sources and I understand that it takes a lot of hard work. Thank you for all your help. I can understand your perspective at the AFD since my personal philosophy is to preserve information as much as possible. Hence I often try to bring references to the discussion or recommended a merge to preserve content. The perspective of other editors is also important though. I believe they are concerned about the quality of the sources and want to critically analyse some of them. The way I see it, both are necessary. So I support keeping the information, though not necessarily in a standalone article. I support trimming some of the content/claims, but not deleting the article itself. I read though all of the sources and both the articles. Ultimately I felt that the content needs to preserved, but it is not strictly necessary to keep in a standalone article.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I realised some time ago, we interacted at another deletion discussion where you very kindly helped to format some of the references I copied. Thank you so much for that. I had intended to say thanks but the discussion was closed by then.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray I have a lot of faith in Wikipedia. :) AFD is largely for proposing deletion of the article including all the contents. There was zero chance it would have been deleted. For me that's what is more important, preserving the content on Wikipedia (subject to guidelines like WP:V and WP:RS of course). Whether the content is covered in a standalone article or covered in another article is a secondary editorial decision. Of course, we also discuss that on an AFD, but as long as the content can be preserved, I am happy.---DreamLinker (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feinoa: Sorry for the late response. The problem is that you tend to edit war instead of discussing. Your edits are creating a mess which has to be cleaned up, which takes away valuable time of mine. This is considered disruptive and you will end up being blocked. If you have a preferred version, you should go to the talk page and discuss and explain why. Instead of quietly changing stuff, like this edit of yours [9] where you said it was a copy edit, but instead you removed and change some information. Unfortunately you don't seem to be listening to me, so I guess I will let simply ask an admin to look at this.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I evidence to show racially motivated edits are involved. For example have been making double standard racist edits against East Eurasian males, genetics, achievement, anthropology and everything related to it from 2019 march to 2020. BUT NOBODY TRIES TO STOP HIM and let's him continue.
An than unfortunately you have wiki admins EvergreenFir who does nothing to solve this. Defending the edits of Hunan201p, not allowing anyone to removes his edits. Why doesn't he remove the controversial dispute if he wants to make this fair and square instead he just simply allows. Hunan201p to keep his version of the edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EvergreenFir
The minute you even try to remove EvergreenFir will block page, block your account, and restore all the edits of Hunan201p
You can see that instead of removing Hunan201p edits it removes all the edits that every other users have edited. Many of them were friends, and some people I had asked after seeing what's going
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Abishe}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North East Delhi riots; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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.
You have removed the contents here and mentioned undue weight and it has been reverted becuase there is nothing undue in it when the following things are true, both the Supreme Court and the High Court have taken cognizance of his speech and ordered govt. and police to take action and sought report of actions taken on such hate speeches by other leaders. So when you still felt that it has undue weight, rather than this revert you should have bought it fr discuss rather than edit warring without pretending to all right by labelling BLP violation which is not. Dey subrata (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dey subrata It's WP:UNDUE and bordering on a BLP violation to add that quote and it is perfectly fine to remove it. The quote is an allegation by the father of a victim, it is not a court judgement (which I wouldn't have objected to). I didn't remove the content from the article btw, just the quote highlight since it doesn't add anything. Oh, and I was typing out an explanation on the talk when you decided to template me.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong here ? you are over reacting. Although I wont revert as it is unnecessary, but so was the edit. The name I used clarified what the source was. your name misses that point. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ10:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray I would never have used that reference in the article in the first place. It's unnecessary as there are better references available. Publishing a list of the people who died (with other details) often causes the families more anguish. For this reason, news media usually do not publish the names. There are also safety considerations about family members who might be subjected to harassment. Many of these were ordinary people and their families not even have the money, political power and privilege to protect themselves. I am puzzled why a reputed publication like the Wire published this. I don't even know if they took permission from all the families before publishing this.
Sure, including this reference doesn't break any Wikipedia rules. So in that sense, perhaps I am "overreacting". But we can be more compassionate when we write stuff. I wanted to remove the reference altogether, but only changed the ref name because "dead list" seems quite crude to me.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Because it had 1 delete !vote & 1 merge/redirect !vote & you closed it as a redirect, now you tell me, what isn’t controversial about such non admin close? I actually want to know what your thought process was when you were performing that close. Have you ever read WP:BADNAC? Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007 Thank you. Yes, I had read the essay earlier. I also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. From what I saw, none of the participants supported the existence of a standalone article. The nominator and one more participant supported a delete. Another participate supported a merge/redirect. I chose redirect as a balance her as per WP:ATD-R. In case someone wants to merge stuff, I also left a note at the merge target. I am not very experienced in closing AfD, so I would like to understand your viewpoint about why this is controversial (and how would you have closed it).--DreamLinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t have closed it, WP:BADNAC makes that clear enough. Now, given your own rationale for closing the article & what you just stated above, I’d say you completely disregarded WP:NACPIT. Please be more careful next time, currently we have an editor on the verge of a topic ban for performing BADNAC's. There’s a reason closing AFD's are usually left for sysops to handle. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007 I see. The rationale was not my own. It was the views of the nominator/participants. Personally, I disagree that this is a bad NAC. Anyway, I will post this on WP:AN for community feedback. It will also help me to learn.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appears it wasn’t a BADNAC after all, apologies mate. I didn’t even realize at that point in time that I was too involved to unilaterally oppose and revert the close. Once again, my apologies for that & the hostile approach. Celestina007 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Celestina007, no problem at all. I appreciate that you explained me more about NAC. Overall, it was a good learning experience for me. Btw, in case I make any mistakes or do anything contravening the Wikipedia policies/guidelines, feel free to let me know here. I am happy to learn and improve. See you around! :D --DreamLinker (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed up IP address
Bother - I mixed up my browsers. I'm not concerned (though happy to edit as appropriate if useful for clarity) but thanks for sending the email to check! --Zeborah (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeborah: No problem at all :) If it is not a problem, you can just edit comment the by the IP and put your own signature (and mention in the edit summary that it you who logged out by mistake).--DreamLinker (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
