Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 2 February 2016 (→Unblock request.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)

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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Terabar reported by User:Ekvastra (Result: ). Thank you. Ekvastra (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Terabar. I think you better calm down here. You're getting yourself into trouble again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Terabar, you can see I did not delete your reference and only summarized your text to fit better into the article but you have been deleting well sourced content. All I am saying is to paraphrase them to keep them simple and small and let other sources remain even if they do not align with your POV. --Ekvastra (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a very strong POV. No problems as long as you discuss with other editors and acknowledge sources that do not exactly align with your POV. --Ekvastra (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the AN3 complaint, I've suggested you should be blocked for long-term edit warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Suicide of Rohith Vemula

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this AN3 report (permalink). It does not appear you are able to edit neutrally where Dalits are involved. I'm also alerting you under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The topic of Dalit is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User: EdJohnston, What is this? Can you explain to me in simple words? And why can't you unblock me? I didn't make 3 reverts in a one day. I told you that I will try to find a middle path on article's talkpage? Did I even break any promise earlier? Terabar (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EW for the edit warring policy. You didn't break 3RR. but you tried to force your views into the article by steadily reverting over a long period. The DS alert notifies you that admins can take quick action on edits in the area of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan if they see people are not editing according to policy. You should be careful to follow policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User: EdJohnston, I tried to talk on talkpage. I also agreed to solve the dispute. This is very depressing for me now. I didn't break any rule. I am still saying that you unblock me and I will try to reach consensus on Article's talk page. Heavens will not fall if you unblock me. This will generate more animosity between editors. This is not the way. I have tried to talk on talkpage. Terabar (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not planning to lift your block, but you can use the {{unblock}} template here on your talk page and other admins will be able to review your request. See WP:Guide to appealing blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request.

Terabar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I tried to talk on talkpage. I also agreed to solve the dispute. This is very depressing for me now. I didn't break any rule. I am still saying that you unblock me and I will try to reach consensus on Article's talk page. Heavens will not fall if you unblock me. This will generate more animosity between editors. This is not the way. I have tried to talk on talkpage. Terabar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes you did break a rule, the one that forbids long-term edit warring (see WP:EW), and insisting that you did not will not get you unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.