Hi, how are you doing these days? Can you spare some time for this PR? —Vensatry (ping) 17:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm trying to be on a bit more now, hopefully I can. I'll take a look, but you might also want to check with @Abecedare: as he did evaluate a few FAs earlier. Also, I'm guessing you've already posted on WT:CRIC? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- On first look I find quite a few issues, I'm not familiar with the new peer review process (the page looks eerily similar to an FLC page), so I'll list them here:
- Score card tables look odd, some sort of better formatting would be needed (I've seen something on other pages, can't recall offhand)
- Post match review is very light and disconnected, not sure why NYT or Rediff should be quoted, I'd rather see proper analysis from experts on this.
- Lede is very light compared to the total size of the article.
- Summary is also very light; while quoting facts it also has to provide context to the reader. e.g."Ganguly turned to his spin bowlers as early as the tenth over" should be accompanied by what makes that special (sourced of course).
- These are just some off-hand points I can think of, I think Harrias, Mattinbgn, or Nev1 who have done cricket FAs would have more useful input :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, noted! Good to see editors like you coming back. I don't see much of an activity in WP:CRIC over the recent years. —Vensatry (ping) 18:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari
why you deleted my page sir, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 29pisces (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You have deleted all the messages that explained tis to you, not sure what else can be done.--—SpacemanSpiff 07:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you are around, please could you consider the edits of Amarvashishth (talk · contribs) at Somnath Bharti. Last two sections of the article talk page might help. The user talk page is full of warnings. A decent review might take, oh, three minutes. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did you just reverted my edit without reading the summary of edit.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your summary was not representative of your action, and your reading of the text you're removing is incorrect. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- A none is important to denote that there is no national language. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- But if there is a data field none there must be a reference for it that we do not have any national language. Or all the languages in the 8th schedule should be treated as national language.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- On other point without reference the official jurisdiction language will be treated as national language.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to make changes to the article, read it, discuss it and get consensus before you make any change. The reference is clearly there in the bibliography.—SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a major edit on multiple project pages hence it needs an RfC to get the consensus and suggestions. So, kindly please vote and suggest on the RfC.Prymshbmg (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not necessary until there's some discussion that happens. An RfC is not a first point of discussion, it's an almost last resort. Please do not keep opening RfCs for issues that need to go through a normal discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making any changes which are false and untrue on the page. Kallarnom (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop changing referenced content. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain where is the discussion about the blanking of see also category.Prymshbmg (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would strongly advise you to stop this business of trying to get your way on everything. If you disagree with something start a talk page discussion, don't blind revert well explained changes and give warnings to editors in good standing. You are wasting the time of many people with this behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a blanking on semi protected page without any discussion on talk page. It was not even informed in any notice or proposed any where on any talk page. That is why it must be reverted.Prymshbmg (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop this behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 05:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop what?Prymshbmg (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Please change the location of the Hogenakkal falls to Karnataka as it is wrongly specified as Tamilnadu on the Page.
Find below the proof that hogenakkal falls located in karnataka.
https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Hogenakkal+Falls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthick1980 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please read our reliable sources policy and verifiability policy and then the references attached to the statement that you are trying to change without any reference but "I think so". —SpacemanSpiff 10:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, SpacemanSpiff. Thank you for directing me to WP:INDICSCRIPT. I was not aware of such a consensus. Please see my reply on that page. Thank You. Jose Mathew C (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If u want to block me for editing nayanthara' s page.. I don mind.. but if u want the genuine information or the Wikipedia works irrespect of favoritism for some of the celebrities, then u have to accept the fact.
So, u made to believe that wikipedia itself framing the fake not the truth.
And.. I laughed like anything after reading ur warning mesage..
U dont need to block me; I will quit wikipedia. ..
Try to be honest wikipedia
Good bye Pannikutti (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are free to quit, but any further violations to the biographies of living persons policy will result in a block. —SpacemanSpiff 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
2015_Note_for_Vote_Scam
Deletion review for 2015 Note for Vote Scam
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2015 Note for Vote Scam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi SpacemanSpiff, if you follow the discussion I was responding to the edit war imposed by the user Sangitha rani111. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sangitha_rani111#Vanniyar He didn't follow the discussion and clearly indulged in quick reverts before following the discussion on talk page. Requesting you to please remove the warning. Thanks Merkcid (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The behavior under scrutiny right now is yours as it has been going on for a while, with multiple editors reverting you. THe warning stands. Any more such reverts without a meaningful discussion on the talk page, you are in for a topic ban per the social groups sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was only responding because of the edit wars in the first place, if you see the pattern of the edits on the history page. And the reason quoted by Sangitha rani "No copy right issue. Admin has made these changes. Please discuss in talk page" , clearly proves he hasn't even gone through why the edit was reverted, which means the reason why he performed the edited was wrong in the first place. It more has to do with Sangitha rani getting his view across rather than the other way around. Merkcid (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- As someone who follows the netiquette of wikipedia and seeing it in the highest order of the source of information on the net, I humbly request you to revert my warning. As such, I leave it to your best decision. Good Day sir. ^^ Merkcid (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- You both have been editing tendentiously, you've made a statement about why what you were doing should result in an edit war, yet, you've been doing it! The social groups sanctions warning stays for both of you, it is applicable for everyone who edit wars (among other issues) on the pages of social groups. If you do not repeat this behavior, then of course, you have nothing to worry about. That said, you are of course free to remove any warnings from your own talk page. with certain exceptions including block/unblock notices etc. —SpacemanSpiff 19:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I never thought the said person would re-edit after seeing the reason of the revert. They couldn't even go through the talk page and get to the discussion. How can they respond to a talk page discussion when they clearly are avoiding it? All that user cares about is reverting. I have good reason to believe that said person will again revert without ending the discussion on the talk page. Merkcid (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) FWIW, Sanigtha Ran111 has not generally been avoiding discussion, as the article talk page indicates; your input at that page is, however, zero. If I were you, I would drop this now because you're on very thin ice. If someone reverts you yet again then you should not re-revert without discussion. You are under the spotlight for more than one reason and it really isn't a good place to be, so it is better to collaborate than to try to force your way. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Its clear who has been avoiding the discussion when the user clearly is reverting giving the same reason of the revert he is reverting! Granted you have been having discussion with that user on your talk pages, but that in no way absolves a person of clearly ignoring a discussion. BTW, I have been on the article's talk pages as well. And your words "If someone reverts you yet again then you should not re-revert without discussion. You are under the spotlight for more than one reason and it really isn't a good place to be, so it is better to collaborate than to try to force your way." applies to that user more, since going by record that user will more likely revert without an end of discussion. Merkcid (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Merkcid I have posted my comments and ready to discuss. Also please review the references I have provided.
India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India
By Christophe Jaffrelot
https://books.google.com/books?id=qJZp5tDuY-gC&pg=PA184&dq=vanniyar+rise+of+christophe&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PF6LVaHcMMP2oATh946QCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20rise%20of%20christophe&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?ei=p16LVdSrB8m5oQSC2bKoBQ&id=wG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=vanniyar+pallis&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Like I was saying, "I told you so". Reverts before even seeing the talk page. Then a revert after seeing the talk page, then a revert again going back to the user's POV without discussion. Merkcid (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Here. Roy Moore is a --bleep-- , but this needs to be cut. Thank you. [The Masked Avenger] 66.168.253.87 (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've revdelled it, but your posting of "is a bleep" isn't exactly Kosher either. —SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Point well taken. I'll refrain. Thanks. 66.168.253.87 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Then please remove the Marathi name of Zaheer Khan.
Cheers ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketkarah (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've done it, but you can also do it yourself, just reference the consensus in your edit summary. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can you please talk to User:Prasannarane61993? Said user is repeatedly adding Marathi to the lead of articles, against WP:INDICSCRIPTS and called me racist when I told them to refrain from doing so. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh, I've left a warning to respect consensus and avoid the name calling, but you'll have to ask some other admin to help out if the problem persists as I see I might be involved here, having reverted him a couple of times. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. This problem happened a few years ago with Tamil Articles. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Said user is desperately tying their best to try and win an argument on their talk page. Among other things, I've invited them to be part of the discussion on the Mumbai/Bombay debate. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Johnlp Seem to have missed this, thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
