User talk:Dharmalion76/Archive 2

Changes in list of peace activists

Well I chose not to consider someone who defends a terrorist as a peace activist. That's why I removed her name. I guess you got your explanation. Vikasgupta14 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

She was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for her work in social campaigns and her advocacy of non-violence. She is a peace activist. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of self-self knowledge

Doesn't a 'philosophy of self' reference ones own actions as knowledge of oneself, while a knowledge of others references psychology, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: Is that a question or a statement? Why is being directed towards me? Dharmalion76 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I was questioning 'reference'; My reference to attention and meditation, was to the reader, for how and in what ways a philosophy of self could be developed, thanks?Arnlodg (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: Your reference didn't reference the things you claimed. It isn't a paper about self-knowledge nor is it about using the scientific method. It appears you simply added a research paper arbitrarily into a few articles that had a tenuous connection to what the paper was about. Were you involved with the writing of this paper? Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

More like an attitude than a claim...Your right, I am old and see things more like a biologist-self/soul, mind/body and universe/cosmos are all relative to my/our being here now on our planet; that paper is a very good post modern view of philosophy today, not involed with the paper, respectfully.Arnlodg (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: Honestly I don't understand most of what you wrote. Can you answer me about whether or not you involved with the writing of this paper? Because in this edit you speak of "possible editorial bias." Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your too fast for me, I've added "not involved", I will delete the bias comment but leave the 'reference' in talk, again thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why was my edit incorrect? I don't understand. IvanBombastic (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Which edit? The one where you made up a fact about calorie counts in Last meals or the one the where you made up a fact about Jeffrey R. Holland growing a beard? Dharmalion76 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey why you removed respected and strong words before President of India

IndianAgent1 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:UGC

Hi Dharmalion76. Blogs by single persons are not WP:UGC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The author is not a recognized expert and the bulk of them were extraneous references on things already referenced. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we better avoid links to blogs, personal websites and self-published content. JimRenge (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Four Noble Truths#WPUGC for further discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent UAA report

Hello Dharmalion76, thank you for your recent report at UAA. I have deleted the edit and blocked the account in question indefinitely. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

What did I do? Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome: This edit was not referenced and there are strict guidelines for biographies of living people. You have been warned at least four times about adding content to BLPs without reference. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: I was going to add a reference but you didn't give me time. As soon has I made that edit I got a warning. It's on instagram, I'm not sure how to reference it so I was looking for information on how to do it. 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome: You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. WP:CITE explains about citing references, WP:CITET provides some reference templates, and WP:RS explains what are and are not reliable sources for using. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Raavan film is based on fictious film, story but not based on anything,this was clarified later,some wrong parts are cut due to future reference.sorry for the inconvenience as im working for accuracy.so i edited wrong parts.--Venkatesharaman (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Venkatesharaman: You deleted an incredible amount of information without providing any edit summary to explain your actions. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

sources

im sorry but that amount of information is incorrect sources i give now https://www.indiatoday.in/headlines-today-top-stories/story/vikram-raavan-is-not-an-interpretation-of-the-ramayan-76499-2010-06-13--Venkatesharaman (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Venkatesharaman: That link appears to be an error page. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer it now

Why you removed respected and strong word before President of India???? IndianAgent1 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You were making WP:POV edits which is something you were very aware of with your "mission accomplished" edit summaries. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop undo my changes

Please stop undoing my changes on "American Board of Physician Specialties. You are undoing accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhenrichsen (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lhenrichsen: You aren't making changes you are just deleting sections with no reasoning provided. Multiple editors have reverted your edits so you need to stop now. If you have issues with the content then please use the article talk page to discuss them. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I just put a reason in there. What more do you want? I am not vandalising I am trying to post the most accurate information. The medical board section is way wrong. Plus fixed bad links and updated information. What is the problem with wanting to have a correct page to get real information? The information that is on there now is WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhenrichsen (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lhenrichsen: You didn't add any accurate information you just deleted entire sections of the article. Looking through your edit history you were warned that you have a WP:COI. As a paid editor you must disclose this fact. Please limit yourself to the talk pages of articles you have a conflict of interest on. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2019 (UT

So wrong information is better than correct information? This makes ZERO sense. I am trying to get the correct information to the public. You are blocking that and that is dangerous.

@Lhenrichsen: Nobody said wrong information is better than correct information. You weren't adding "correct information" you were just blanking sections. Now please take a few moments to read WP:COI and WP:PAID and use the article talk page. Dharmalion76 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Always good to see more people join the fight against vandals. Keep it up! Jeb3Talk at me here 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hyperbaric welding

@The Color Editor: What Color do you want it then?

Leave the article as it is. Altering the text size and color is vandalism. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76 ok

Speedy deletion declined: User:CaddoLakeInstitute

Hello Dharmalion76, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:CaddoLakeInstitute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This looks like a sandbox. Agreed the author has a COI, but this is actually an article about a real institute. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 16:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: Thank you for the notification and the information. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You are more than welcome - thanks for your hard work trying to keep the encyclopedia clean from cruft! KillerChihuahua 17:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

Hi Dharmalion. The term criticism is not used in the English language as a synonym for review. If you can point to me to one equivalent article on Wikipedia article on an author where the term "Criticism" is used in the sense of both positive and negative, then I'm fine. How about we agree on Critical Review of work?Harlyn35 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harlyn35: You might want to read Criticism which says "Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something." People who review films are called critics because they engage in criticism. It has no negative connotation. You also might want to read WP:OWN because you seem to think that your preferred version of Elvira Roca Barea should be the only one. Please use the article talk page instead of ramming your preferred version through. Dharmalion76 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Dharmalion76 I am just adding sourced statements present in the Spanish version of the article. I find it very alarming you only want sourcing disparaging the author and are adamant to remove those praising her. Wikipedia operates on a basis of WP:NPOV which means that even if we don't like the person, we cannot attempt to push our own opinion of her on the article. The article now has a bit more balance. You should be happy rather than annoyed by the fact.Harlyn35 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove text that was supportive of the author. I removed text that didn't say what you claimed it said. Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Was that not in the source? Did I miss something?Harlyn35 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in Federico Soguer's article does he mention "far left" or "misogyny". Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Believe Digital

The existing entry had extremely biased information headed "fraudulent behavior." Much of the information in this section was in weakly substantiated claims based on sources such as personal blog entries. I have added factual, media-sourced information to attempt to make this page more balanced. It is based on the fact that it is a huge problem and this is simply calling out one company without acknowledging that it's a widespread problem. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+issue+of+copyright+strikes+and+youtube+music&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS758US758&oq=the+issue+of+copyright+strikes+and+youtube+music&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.11217j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is nothing neutral about text like "As with many companies in the music industry, Believe has been criticized by users who may not fully understand the complexities of YouTube's monetization and copyright system" Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jonngg: If you think the sourcing is weak or the text is POV then you tag it or remove it but either way the article talk page should be used instead of adding your own POV text to the article for "balance". Do you have a conflict of interest here? Are you associated with the company or employees of the company? Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I have read the COI information. I'd like to request that the article be reviewed. thanks

Sheikh Ubaidullah

what the hell?

I gave the references for the information and tried to make article more better and you say good faith edits.The Wikipedia page of Ubaidullah was actually created by me after putting my eyes on a flame in getting information and you interferere every where.Don't harass other users.I am not so familiar with how to cope up with harassers like you.So won't do anything.Just get away!

@Ariel servent of God.: I reverted this edit and explained why. The claim "He is widely regarded as the pioneer of Islamic faith in the Island of Lakshadweep .He brought Islamic faith in AD 661" was not in the reference you provided and the next few sentences were taken almost verbatim from the source. You can't insert copyright violations into articles. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Buddhism

Thanks for protecting the article from dumping of additional promotional/dubious/unsourced content. JimRenge (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pressparty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

NRG Esports

Hey Dharmalion76,

You recently restored a previous version of the NRG Esports Wiki. I work for the company and am making edits as some of the info is outdated or flat out wrong. I am new to editing wikis so I apologize if I did it incorrectly. If you could refrain from stopping my edits, I would appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NRG-Poko (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NRG-Poko: I restored a version with references. If you work for the company then you have a conflict of interest. You also need to publicly disclose this fact per WP:PAYDISCLOSE: if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you. I didn't see your post until now. How do I disclose I work for the company? They aren't technically paying me to edit either. The information is just completely incorrect. Nathaniel Reborn Gang never existed.NRG-Poko (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Jamie

Your recent edit to the article for Jamie has caused some of the related names to give only a single arbitrary example when it previously linked to all the people with that related name. It's caused some of the related names to link to outdated article names that have since been moved. And it's caused some alternate names to be collected at the bottom of the article with others arbitrarily selected to be sprinkled throughout the article along with names that aren't alternate. What possible justification could you have for any of those changes? - 2603:9000:E40B:7500:AC9C:C879:3430:9ABF (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@2603:9000:E40B:7500:AC9C:C879:3430:9ABF: I reverted an edit that categorized people as "Real women" and "Real men" as these are problematic breakdowns. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahmed Shameel

Sir plz help me AhmedSEP00 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@AhmedSEP00: I'm not going to help you add your own name to articles. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

On the removal of accurate editing

The content on the Arab Slave Trade page was removed because the sources themselves do not fall in line with the claims. I have started a conversation for quite some time on the Talk Page of that article. Wikipedia policy was followed. The content removed was not topically relevant anymore that an article of American slavery mentioning slavery taken by ancient Romans would be. Nor is it information that directly relates. There are already articles about Ottoman and Barbary slavery. CaliphoShah (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) I would also like to know why The Wikipedia policy on Censorship is relevant to making sure sources match claims in an article. CaliphoShah (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaliphoShah: Your edit summary claimed the source didn't use the phrase "Arab slave trade" but as the lede makes clear that is term not universally accepted so the fact that the specific term wasn't used doesn't mean the sources aren't speaking of this subject. Similar edits of yours have been reverted and the talk page show others disagree with you. Removing things because you don't like it is censorship. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead doesn't match the sources used to support it! "Arab slave trade" was not used by Davis. The word Arab isn't anywhere to be found! This is true for the article as well: https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

It's not just one source that doesn't match the claim, but all other sources that were removed did not mention Arabs or Arab slave trade. Furthermore if "Arab Slave Trade" can refer to anything, since it's not defined, then why can't the article talk about virtually any thing else, like Baseball or the tv show The Office?

Yes other edits were reverted, and the challengers offered opinions and not sources. If the sources are not in line with the article or with what was written, then they're not relevant and it's within Wikipedia policy to have them removed.

But this shouldn't be surprising. Historians generally don't make the mistake of grouping non-Europeans into the same group. They try their best to discern between Arab, Persian, Berber, etc...

Wikipedia lacks credibility when the sources are erroneously used to push for the unfounded opinions of editors. If there's disagreement about removing claims not matched by their own very sources, then I'd like to talk to other administrators who have experience in analyzing content and sources (or perhaps who police such mismatches). Since this discussion is more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability then Censorship. CaliphoShah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read what I initially wrote. I don't think you are understanding what I said. The fact that David didn't use the exact term "Arab slave trade" doesn't mean he wasn't talking about this subject as the lede itself notes.

If you admit that your changes have been reverted before then please use the article talk page to gain consensus rather than warring over them. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your argument. It basically went like this. I'll describe and mention problems with the argument.

1) Lead makes it clear (how so?) that the meaning of term "Arab slave trade" isn't wholly agreed on.

2) Therefore other sources can use to refer to Arab slave trade because they're speaking of that subject

The argument is a non sequitur and a circular fallacy because it appeals to the lead which it tries to justify by appealing to the lead of the article. And, what is that "subject"? And who gets to define "Arab slave trade"? If the sources aren't used to define it, then how would one know which sources are relevant and which aren't?

Of course to try and refute my objections, you could appeal to the lead.... But half lead is not sourced with respect to the Arab slave tradeBold text! So it doesn't hold water

Whatever the lead of an article claims has only value if and only if the sources are reliable and support it, does it not?

Therefore, if the sources don't match the lead, the lead is not supported. And appealing to a lead wouldn't make sense.

Now let's get to the part of the lead which matches the source, the second part. That part mentions "Arab slave trade" being a misnomer when it comes to the Zanj trade.  ::::Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant for now. He mentions that Arab slave trade is used to refer to East Africa. The disagreement of the lead is about Arab slave trade being the wrong name for whatever happened in East Africa. It's not talking about any slave trade (or lackthereof) in Europe, North Africa or wherever else by Barbary Pirates and Ottomans.

Appealing to the lead would make sense if for example, there's disagreement between editors over whether a non-Arab group enslaving Africans in East Africa would be considered slave trade or not. The lead mentions disagreement about word Arab slave trade in the Zanj route areas. However it doesn't say anything about Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliphoShah (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1. In the lede of Arab slave trade the second paragraph begins with "Walter Rodney argues that the term Arab Slave Trade is a historical misnomer since bilateral trade agreements between myriad ethnic groups across the proposed 'Zanj trade network' characterized much of the acquisition process of chattel, and more often than not indentured servants.[7] He alternatively refers to it as the East African slave trade or the Indian Ocean slave trade."

2. I don't understand where you are getting this. I was very clear both times: the fact that the specific wording "Arab slave trade" isn't used doesn't mean this subject wasn't what was discussed.

For the rest of your issues that is what the article talk page is for not my talk page. Dharmalion76 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)