User talk:Terabar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:43, 19 January 2016 editTerabar (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users681 edits →Archive ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:57, 1 February 2016 edit undoEkvastra (talk \| contribs)237 edits →3rr warning: new sectionNext edit →
Line 87:		Line 87:

	:::I think it would be wise not to push too hard on this. It wasn't worth a block. The more interesting question is: why are these numbers relevant? If you only mention "30,000" (or 300,000 or 3,000,000) it's just another instance of "mine is bigger than yours." What's the value of that? Better find good sources, which also provide a context, to make it worth mentioning. Bets regards, ] -] 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)		:::I think it would be wise not to push too hard on this. It wasn't worth a block. The more interesting question is: why are these numbers relevant? If you only mention "30,000" (or 300,000 or 3,000,000) it's just another instance of "mine is bigger than yours." What's the value of that? Better find good sources, which also provide a context, to make it worth mentioning. Bets regards, ] -] 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

			== 3rr warning ==

			] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

			'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.{{Break}}Please do not remove reliably sourced content, you are showing ownership. I have accepted your additions, but they are getting too lengthy and gives a lop-sided coverage. You may add your pov with due weight, and also summarise opposing views from reliable sources appropriately. Deleting them completely is not allowed.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->

Revision as of 14:57, 1 February 2016

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Help needed : Ambedkar's book

Hi, Thank you for your good comment on my edits to B.R. Ambedkar and his book Waiting for a Visa. I wonder if you could help further expand the wiki on Waiting for a visa? I have already added a short synopsis of each of the chapters, based on readings that I did and citations from other authors. However, this article could do with further expansion, especially on it's history (how Ambedkar came to writing it), its impact and the reason for its chosen name. Could you please help in this exercise? Thanks. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Notthebestusername Sorry for replying late. Dear friend, You have done a great work by adding the content and references on both the pages. For that I am extremely thankful to you. I am also of the opinion that you should not merge the article Waiting for a Visa in B.R. Ambedkar. Rather you should keep both the articles separate as it can provide much more information on the subject. I will ask for help from another user User:Deepcruze who I think can help both of us to expand the article. May peace and blessings be with you. Terabar (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Terabar. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also be aware of canvassing

Regarding your message to The Rahul Jain: read WP:CANVASS. Remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a platform for your personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked about the opinion of that user. There is nothing wrong in communication with any person. Yes , Misplaced Pages is not a site of personal opinions. First look into the mirror and read this comment of yours.

"To add a personal note: I've been studying Buddhism and Hinduism for over 25 years now; studying them in combination has helped me to understand both of them better, since they are so closely related." @ User: Joshua Jonathan Terabar (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Toucher. Yet, there is a difference in explaining where your interests are, and trying to ease the interaction between editors, versus actively engaging other editors to gain support for your personal opinions. See also WP:NOT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh man! When did I ask for any support? You are mistaken. That user User:The Rahul Jain has the free choice to comment or not. And Misplaced Pages is not a site of personal opinion? Remember? @User:Joshua Jonathan. Terabar (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Rahul is welcome anyway. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for your nice contribution to Misplaced Pages. You should not upload images from internet, otherwise you are doing good work at Misplaced Pages. Keep it up. Thanks again. Human3015 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User: Human3015. Your comment is very much motivating. You are the first person in the whole of my Misplaced Pages career who appreciated my work. I am very much grateful to you from the bottom of my heart. Misplaced Pages needs motivating editors like you. Thanks again.:) Terabar (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Love and wisdom

Dear Terabar, may 2016 be full of love and wisdom! All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive

Hi Terabar. I've added MiszaBot to your talkpage, which archives old treads automatically. I've created User talk:Terabar/Archive 1, moved your removed treads to there, including the ones you wanted to erase. It's highly recommanded to keep those treads! Other editors may want to know what kind of trouble you run into; removing them gives the impression you've got something to hide. In the end, it's better to be honest. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User: Joshua Jonathan! I am glad that you added that automatic bot. I have 3 questions for you. Please answer as you see fit.

Are you spying on me?
Did you really thanked me for this edit mistakenly or you wanted to thank my edit in which I made an unblock appeal?
Can you please help me on article Dalit Buddhist Movement? Thanks. Terabar (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm spying on you! It's called "talk page stalker." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the article; honestly, you run yourself into unnecessary trouble over there. Both sources don't mention 300,00 (converts). The copy-vio argument is a stupid argument; it was clearly presented as a quote. The only objection could be that you find it WP:UNDUE, as Human3015 argued. And then, still, others may find it informative. Take care; there are better reasons to get blocked than this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Joshua Jonathan, thanks for guiding me that it could be WP:UNDUE. As far as 30,000 (Thirty Thousand) converts are concerned,if you put two more zeroes then it becomes 3,00,00,00 (Thirty Lakh). That's what one of the sources from the 1st leading newspaper in India, Times of India says. I even mentioned that on article's talkpage.

Times of India says that 30 lakh Dalits converted to Buddhism in year 2006.

See 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism

The Hindu says that more than 1 Lakh Dalits embraced Buddhism in year 2007.

See One lakh people convert to Buddhism

These two newspapers are the leading newspapers in India. You can verify that even on their respective Misplaced Pages articles. I have pasted some of it below. Misplaced Pages describes Times of India newspaper as

"According to the Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2012, the Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper in India with a readership of 7.643 million. This ranks the Times of India as the top English daily in India by readership."
Its official website can be seen here Times of India

Misplaced Pages describes The Hindu newspaper as

"It is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, with average qualifying sales of 1.39 million copies (as of December 2013). According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India (after the Times of India and Hindustan Times), with a readership of 2.2 million people."
Its official website can be seen here The Hindu

Will you now please help me Joshua as you helped me earlier? Terabar (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So, one lakh is 100,000 (western digits)? Which means that 30 lakh is 3,000,000 (western digits)? And 1 lakh is 100,000 (western digits)? Pfooo... Aren't here other sources than these two newspapers? Scholarly sources? ~~

Thanks for replying Joshua! There has to be a book written after year 2006 and 2007 to find some scholarly sources. Most of the books are written on that subject before that year. But some of it are of-course written after 2006. For example this one. . But still this one too cites the source from newspaper, The Hindu which is one of the leading newspaper in India. You can check that for yourself. We can mention both the things on the article as it is from the finest sources in the country. What do you think? Terabar (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be wise not to push too hard on this. It wasn't worth a block. The more interesting question is: why are these numbers relevant? If you only mention "30,000" (or 300,000 or 3,000,000) it's just another instance of "mine is bigger than yours." What's the value of that? Better find good sources, which also provide a context, to make it worth mentioning. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

3rr warning

Your recent editing history at Suicide of Rohith Vemula shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.
Please do not remove reliably sourced content, you are showing ownership. I have accepted your additions, but they are getting too lengthy and gives a lop-sided coverage. You may add your pov with due weight, and also summarise opposing views from reliable sources appropriately. Deleting them completely is not allowed.