AkshayDandekar
( हा साचा दाखवा संपादन · बदल )
Welcome message in Marathi Language
मराठी विकिपीडियाच्या सर्व आजी माजी वाचक,संपादक, आणि चहात्यांना अभिनंदन आणि  आपल्या मराठी विकिपीडियावरील सहभागाबद्दल, सहवासाबद्दल आणि उत्कृष्ट योगदानाबद्दल हे मराठी विकीचे अभिमान गौरव निशाण मराठी विकिपीडियाच्या सर्व आजी माजी वाचक,संपादक, आणि चहात्यांना अर्पण करण्यात येत आहे.आपल्या आवडीचे वाचन,लेखन संपादन असेच सदैव घडत राहो हि शुभेच्छा!!
Resources स्रोत आणि सहाय्य
How do I type in Marathi मराठीत टायपींग कसे करू ?
  Thanks to all Wikipedians who have been supporting Marathi Wikipedia through various means like interwiki linking etc.
~~~~ Marathi Wikipedia Welcome team
| |||||
Copied from the discussion at WP:EAR, for your convenience. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Conflict resolution regarding the 'Moksha' article edit
Moksha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello Sir/Madam,
I am facing some issues editing the article under the heading 'Moksha', because one of the active content providers keeps reversing my changes, while providing little or no explanation for his/her actions. The user in question here goes by the name of 'Mitsube'. Given below are the links to the article and the usertalk page. You can call me Dandekar.
I perform minor/english edits to Wikipedia, and do not possess the skills or ability to argue with the active content providers, who most definitely know more than I do. I focus mostly on the language and readability of the articles I edit. These days, with every article that I try to edit, I am faced with people trying to push their thoughts onto Wikipedia, providing little or no facts, and arguing vehemently with 'noobs' such as myself for little reason. This results in newcomers shying away from Wikipedia altogether. And my episode with 'Mitsube' is a very good example of this very behavior that has tainted Wikipedia. I hope some action is taken in this regard.
---- Dandekar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- The material is (excessively) well-sourced. This user's characterization of the situation is inaccurate. Mitsube (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although there are references in the Origins section there are only two other in the rest of the article. Reference #1 is not clear as to the full title of the book being referenced. I can see no evidence of User:AkshayDandekar's edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- You say his characterization is inaccurate, however he isn't questioning the sources. I believe your characterization of the situation is inaccurate.Drew Smith What I've done 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although there are references in the Origins section there are only two other in the rest of the article. Reference #1 is not clear as to the full title of the book being referenced. I can see no evidence of User:AkshayDandekar's edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not wish to change any 'content'. I was just changing the way it was portrayed. And that too in a very minor way. In fact a major reason for even reporting this small 'episode' is because I was surprised to find all my changes reversed(thrice... and each time I tried to change something in a different manner), when my changes hardly amounted to anything. I was feeling real good of having done my small part for wikipedia... until I come back to see everything back to square one. If I am going to face so much criticism for something as minor as removing a couple of adverbs (which i feel should be removed) and adding a qoute from the reference itself! Then is there a point in trying to help at all? Besides the quote was added to resolve the conflict regarding the summary in the first place. Also, thanks Drew for hearing me out. I will focus my attention on other topics. There is plenty of playground for everyone. -- Dandekar (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think there's at least one underlying problem here, though I will agree it seems silly to revert over what appears to be a style issue. The two versions are extremely similar. I don't understand Mitsube's objections, and to Dandekar, I would say you can probably feel safe to continue editing the article. If Mitsube can't collaborate on the article or discuss things in a reasonable fashion on the article talk page, I think we can escalate the situation further. I don't think you're in the wrong behaviorally Dandekar.
- Something I do have a problem with however is the excessive use of quotations in the reference material. Quotations, if relevant to the article, should be in the article rather than attached to reference footnotes. Otherwise, if they're only relevant for the purposes of fact checking, the quotation is unnecessary. As Mitsube says, the material is excessively well-sourced; something in excess should generally be reduced, no? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference edit
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)