Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 8 May 2018

Misplaced Pages Library Past Masters account check-in

Hello Discoverer,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Past Masters through the Misplaced Pages Library. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Past Masters account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. If you would prefer to contact me directly about your experience with this resource, please leave a message on my talk page.

Thank you, Misplaced Pages Library Past Masters account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

ScienceDirect

You should have received an email from me a couple of weeks ago regarding your request for access to ScienceDirect. Could you please either fill out the form linked from that email or let me know if you did not receive it? We are hoping to get these processed as soon as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in India has been nominated for discussion

Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in India, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishop of tinnevelly

Please, in the future ask for removal rather than blanking a page.Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to nominate it for deletion but forgot to do it.The Discoverer (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Catholic bishops of India, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MSFS and Edward Francis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages email re Adam Matthew signup

HazelAB (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Indian 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation

An article that you have been involved in editing—Indian 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. AdityaChanana (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The Discoverer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Refrain form removing contents without discussing them

Dear The Discoverer, I am requesting you to refrain from removing contents before discussing on talk page. You have done it twice. In one incident your have removed the properly referenced sources because you did not like it. Or you did not find it appropriate. Please understand that it is wrong to do so. I would suggest you to read some guidelines before doing so. I would even like to request administrators and experienced editors to take a note of this and to take action on you if found necessary. Please understand that your account can be blocked if you continue to do this. Hope you will understand. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing contents without discussing them

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please do not remove well referenced sources

Here you have removed a well referenced source giving the reason that he finds that it is unrelated / irrelevant. Is it ok to remove a reference like that only becasue one think that they are not important? I am learning new editing styles here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for List of cathedrals in India talk page

Hi, I have left a suggestion on talk page of List of cathedrals in India, which you have been involved, looking forward to hear from you. Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War has been nominated for discussion

Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hung Ta-chen

This edit was badly wrong. You can clearly see that the Kashmir territory extended up to the bend in the Karakash river. In fact, Dorothy Woodward says (p.73):

Clarke added that a Chinese map drawn by Hung Ta-chen, Minister in St. Petersburg, confirmed the Johnson alignment showing West Aksai Chin as within British (Kashmir) territory.

Noorani gives a longer quote from Clarke's note (p.90):

The Aksai Chin (White Desert) are the great soda plains east of Karakoram and south of the Kuen Lun. I think Mr Macartney is right in his belief that the region is partly in Chinese and partly in British (Kashmir) territory. It is a pity that Mr Macartney did not back up his opinion by referring Huang Tajen to the map prepared of this part of the country, by Hung Ta-chin, late Chinese minister at St. Petersburg (see enclosure of Mr Macartney’s letter to Resident in Kashmir, No. 141, dated the 23rd July 1893). I have marked the Aksai Chin on that map, and part clearly is shown as within Kashmir territory. Will Superintendent External (b), please say if the question of this corner of the Tibet–border has come up before.

Please also keep in mind that "Aksai Chin" only referred to the Soda Plains in those days, not Lingzi Tang or Depsang Plains. That "Aksai Chin" was divided between Kashmir and Tibet, called the "West Aksai Chin" and "East Aksai Chin" respectively. The Tibetan part is now called Changthang plateau, but it is indistinguishable from West Aksai Chin. The boundary between them is purely political, not geographical. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That note is from 1896. Between then and 1899, the British changed their tune. To them, Kashmir frontier was a chess piece, to be traded for something more important. They had already given away Shahidulla to create an eastern version of the Wakhan Corridor. They now wanted to trade West Aksai Chin in return for China relinquishing its suzerainty over Hunza. But China didn't agree. So the offer lapsed. In any case the British suggestions for a political compromise could not significantly prejudice the Indian case since the offer lapsed and concessions made in the course of negotiations do not rank as admission of rights. So, the Macartney-MacDonald Line has no validity any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that you are right. I'm not sure how I made the connection between Hung Ta-Chen and the Macartney-Macdonald line.. I have a feeling it's in some source. The Discoverer (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For now, I think it makes sense to make the same edits that you have done to other Misplaced Pages pages that make the same connection namely, Aksai Chin, Sino-Indian border dispute and Sino-Indian War. Of course now we can't edit Sino Indian War. Could you do the edits, or would you prefer if I did them? The Discoverer (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and copy it if you have the time. I am still going to completely rewrite that page, because the Hunza deal isn't discussed at all at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to do exactly the same change on Aksai Chin and Sino-Indian border dispute, then for Sino-Indian War we'll have to either do a protected edit request or we can wait and edit it when the page is unprotected. I compliment your sharp eyes and thoroughness, and I apologise for my mistake. The Discoverer (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Eekelen, Willem Frederik; Eekelen, Willem Frederik van (2013), Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China, Springer, p. 163, ISBN 978-94-017-6555-8

I think the problem is that we are all being dishonest. We cite Google Books snippet views just as any other book. This gives the misleading impression that we have actually read the books being cited. It is impossible for other editors to verify what we saw in the snippets and the errors stay there for ever. The solution is to include quotations that support the content. I am going to follow this policy from now, and I suggest you do the same. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanatan Sansta

Request WIKI Oversight. The author is misreading or reading into news articles to further then notion that the Sansta is behind the murders of those mentioned on the Wikipage. I have no idea who the Sansta are, neither do I care for their ideology. However, in an effort to tar them with the same brush @TheDiscoverer or Vasco is making false and specious conclusions using contradictory newsreports. While it is customary to use words like "allege" or "suspected" @TheDiscoverer uses language that is conclusive. Maybe @Kautilya3, an India native who is aware of these topics should look into them, with the oversight of another wiki editor or two. @The Discoverer has been warned before for blanking out sections and biases shown in favor catholic reporting. It does not matter who is wrong, the point we only have access to news that everyone can see, so multiple editors should view the same articles cited to see if they say what is being interpreted by @TheDiscoverer. That is ideal peer reviewing. Thank you172.125.126.89 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Please avoid using bare URLs as references. They are subject to wp:LINKROT, which then threatens articles' verifiability. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I will try to add reference details from now on. Sometimes I am a little lazy. I know that there's ReFill that can be used to fill details after making an edit. Is there any tool that helps fill reference details while making an edit? The Discoverer (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

reFill doesn't do such a good job. Please use reflinks, and use the slow version which allows you to fix any problems before committing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanatan Sanstha

Obviously your reading and comprehension skills are poor. If you read carefully it will say that ballistics is new science. Grown ups use the word fledgling for new. In the end of the article it says that there is no conclusive link.172.125.126.89 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You are engaging in the worst kind of misrepresentation of the sources where you join two unrelated sentences from two different places in the article to imply something that the article does not, and on top of that you place your new made-up statement in double quotes. The Discoverer (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The Discoverer. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Karate in India

If you wish to help improve Karate in India I would appreciate it. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at both Karate in India and Taekwondo in India and see what I can contribute. Thanks for creating the pages! The Discoverer (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on 2016 Indian_banknote demonetisation. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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.

While it is too clear that you are attempting to game WP:3RR, it is just also clear that you don't really think about editing this subject neutrally given your edits such as . Capitals00 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no edit war going on. However, if several constructive edits are undone instantly with a vague summary, as you have done, then I guess I am entitled to revert and ask you to explain.

As per the WP:3RR, since 6 March till the present, I have only performed two reverts, with a gap of 36 hours between them. This could hardly be considered as gaming 3RR. In addition, it is clear that the four edits cited by you are completely neutral. The Discoverer (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That is how you have learned how to game WP:3RR. Yes your edits are completely disruptive and non-neutral. You don't even know what the source was actually saying and any more of that may result in topic ban or block. Capitals00 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's was a misleading edit. Do you really believe that talk page said that you are allowed to remove analysis of Aarati Krishnan and retain thewire.in (unreliable) as sources? Your WP:CIR issues are not even limited to this. You had exhibited similar incompetence on entire Sino-Indian conflicts. You are clearly asking me to report you for your lengthy disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)