User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Orphan tag

Comment by Silver seren (talk · contribs) at 12:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You recently put an Orphan tag on the article 3Doodler and i'm not sure what to do about it. There wouldn't be any other articles discussing it, not until the Kickstarter campaign ends and then it'll probably end up making enough money to go into the top ten list in the Kickstarter article. But, other than that, i'm not seeing any other articles that would possibly link to it in the near future, so I don't think the tag is really necessary if there's no way to rectify it. Silverseren^C 12:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See, there are two ways you can play it:

1. you remove it. In which case anybody using AWB will be tempted to tag it back or at least there is a possibility that somebody will in good faith tag it back (like I did).
2. You may just leave the tag there, it's not invalid, nor is it doing any harm, quite the contrary it's encouraging people to improve it.

But I am leaving it up to you; deal with it as you deem fit. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see the purpose of a tag like that if it isn't possible for anyone to fix it. Silverseren^C 19:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Comment by Crtew (talk · contribs) at 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the thread "Being Stalked" (guess who is claiming that?) at RegentsPark's talk page. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Seabury Stanton

Comment by Ybidzian (talk · contribs) at 17:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, linked up this page Seabury Stanton to a couple of others, but not sure of the correct template to indicate I have actually done so. Technically he's not an orphan anymore :) Ybidzian (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

P264

Comment by PamD (talk · contribs) at 17:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page (and was labeled as such), so (a) it should be an orphan and should not be tagged as such, and (b) it is not a stub! PamD 17:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the use of exclamation(!) Pam. Obviously I must have missed it. I was a little caught up in multiple other things in Wikipedia as well as the real world, you understand that that can happen? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question at AWB's page

I answered at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Can_we_deal_with_this.3F. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing header

Comment by 188.50.35.22 (talk · contribs) at 20:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

i am extremely sorry for my mistake... i am a new user and want to explore new things in wikipedia... :-) 188.50.35.22 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

You left a message on my page, I didn't quite understand its import. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk back

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 14:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Ratnakar.kulkarni's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are famous!

Comment by Anir1uph (talk · contribs) at 10:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image of agni missile ranges has been used here and here Congratulations! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)DAMN It feels good!!!! Why did they use that image?? If they had asked me I would make a better image, I believe I already did, didn't I? 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did - i still fondly remember the long discussion we had about how to mark the ranges. It was fun! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's back

Comment by Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) at 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This could do with you looking over and either updating your signature if nothing's changed so the time is right, or editing / removing your comment. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Saffron terror

Comment by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) at 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please self revert on Saffron terror. Your rationale is entirely wrong. Yes, it's true that pages should not become fossilized because of old consensus...but the decision to switch to the current wording was just recently achieved are extensive dispute resolution. You can't just change it because you don't like it. Furthermore, your edit is actually wrong. The page is not an article about a phrase. It's a page about a set of violent actions carried out in India (mostly). We don't start Wikipedia articles with "X is a word that means" or "X is a phrase about" except when we're actually talking about them as linguistic units.

At this point you're edit warring, and you're the one exhibiting WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Please, self-revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done because I wanted to prove that I didn't and never wish to exhibit WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, please give me the link to WP:DR or don't worry I will find it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_62#Talk:Saffron_terror —— does not say it is closed or that it has reached a resolution, then how can it be held as a reason to revert? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't closed, it was just archived due to inactivity. But a simple reading of the proceedings will show that there is a clear consensus for the current wording. It's nearly unanimous, in fact. Plus, as I explained above, your suggested wording is simply counter to how every other article on Wikipedia is done. I'm going to look around and see if there's a guideline that helps clarify. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked Lowkeyvision to remove his offensive claims from the Saffron terror page, and he has. Could you remove your quote of his words as well? Just erase them and put "redacted" in its place instead, or something like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirt58 --Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Never

Alter my talk page comments again as you did here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A> I didn't wish to alter your comment.
B> You are the initiator of the RFC you don't need to formally vote.
C> This is flatout hypocrisy to whine about minor alteration of your comment while you wholly strike out others' comments on afds with just about the same rationale. Also I see you right-out removed APL's legitimate comment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this I had just striked it out because I do not want anyone to accuse of refactoring talk page comments.--sarvajna (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Comment by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) at 06:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the issue with Darkness Shines that you asked me about on my talk page. I almost acted independently, but decided it was a close enough call that I wanted the input of other admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Inane and irresponsible warning by DS with a COI

Hello, I'm Darkness Shines. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Rape culture because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Due to your disruption I have rebooted the RFC, mess with it again and I will report you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What recent edit exactly? Are you consciously doing this? I didn't edit Rape culture in quite some time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? So this[1] is not you then? Twice you shut down an RFC you are involved in because you do not like the content. Mess with an RFC is initiate again and I will bring you to ANI for your highly partisan and disruptive edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

STFU and stay away from my talk page. I didn't edit Rape Culture in a month. What is wrong with you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, you should know better than to edit war over an RfC. It's bad enough removing it once, but doing so twice is borderline disruptive. Let the RfC run its full course and make your arguments on substantive grounds rather than on counting the number of RfCs on a topic. Otherwise, you'll only make the closing editor underweight your arguments. Regardless of all that, don't do this again. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, RegentsPark why do you always prefer to ignore my side? Always? And why the heck do you always end up warning me? You didn't notice that the inane warning he just gave me (with a glaring COI) being as involved as me. You don't seem to agree that back to back RfC is never a good thing. You didn't even talk to him.

If he was so against a close he could have fought against the closure of the first RFC (he could have taken it to ANI if he wanted). He didn't do so. He started another RFC on the hip of the first one.

Don't comment on my talk unless you are being evenhanded, which I don't think you're right now. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, like I say above, edit warring is never a good idea on an RfC. Personally, I don't think the new RfC question is a particularly good one, but that doesn't obviate the right of an editor to start one or even reopen it again if the first one has devolved into bickering. On a persona note, I think you're a good editor (though with an unfortunate tendency to go to extremes!), and am disappointed that you think I'm being less than even handed and can assure you that I have little preference for DarknessShines over you (quite the contrary perhaps). --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I admit it, my comment to you was a little over the top. I hope you get my frustration. All good between you and me. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Asante Africa Foundation

Comment by Afrisante (talk · contribs) at 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am creating a wikipedia page for Asante Africa Foundation and I have seen a notice for "speedy deletion". I have used credible sources in my article, please explain what's wrong with my article.

re Need your opinion on reliable source

Hi Cirt,

Saw you were one of the last active editor on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Culture

I am in a quandary and trying to make this question as general as possible. Here goes: what, according to you, might serve as a solid source in the field of cultural studies?
P.S. Kindly take the question at its face value. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean basically have you read pages WP:RS and WP:V? That would basically be my answer. — Cirt (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI behaviour

Hi, just a note; the way you are acting at ANI makes it look like you have a major axe to grind. You are also being uncivil while complaining about someone elses incivility; your comments towards Darkness Shines are dismissive and disrespectful. I don't think you can deny that if you look at your comments and read them as though they were directed at you. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would have been better if you didn't bring your sentiments from ANI to my talk page. You are certainly entitled to your POV, albeit I am not impressed by your assessment of DS's behaviour at all. And it's not me alone who has complains against DS's conduct. It's DS who is dismissive and disrespectful and dogmatic. Not me.
I have not pretended to be an admin (also as an uninvolved party) while doling out sanction warnings among my opponents at Wikipedia and then defended it by outright denying it.
Maybe you don't know DS that closely; perhaps you didn't have to work with him for as long as I did. Had you been a party to every conflict DS and others had you wouldn't be saying such a thing.
He has been mostly on my side on many disputes (from AFDs to RFCs to other articles) so don't think that my COI is a reason behind the "axe" you're referring to. It's just that I don't believe, not after this much obduracy and dogmatism on his part, that he is fit to be a member of this community unless he becomes calm and composed while communicating with others. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Random header

Comment by Waseem1034 (talk · contribs) at 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

this article is highly biased and based on some very subliminal  intellect and to belittle a particular community Waseem1034 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Which article-? wikipedia is highly biased see

this for example

Rashmi Singh

Hi This Ananaya Kindly tell me how to about this page as I have added many more new links. Ananyaprasad (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed the heading. I personally have no comments. The sources seem pretty much the same in terms of their quality of coverage. Nonetheless, I will talk to Sitush and probably others about this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any real changes of note, either. It seems to be more or less the same as at the AfD. Frankly, I think it is a lost cause for now but perhaps things will change as she writes/is published more. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It may be just too soon and it might arguably merit an article after some time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From

ok ok i understand i wont doing it again by --Sunuraju (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Mrt3366, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gilgit–Baltistan

You are now on 3RR on this article. Please discuss your changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote 2 lines hardly. And I wrote a whole paragraph. Do not ask the opponent to "discuss" when you yourself are not amenable towards it because then it pushes the limits of my capability to assume good. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also per WP:TPO "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Given recent history how did you not think this would be seen as a provocation? I intend to revert your change of the header. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw you didn't wait for my reply. You went ahead and reverted the heading. FTR, I didn't consider my change a potentially "controversial" one. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dated info on ICBM list?

Comment by Irondome (talk · contribs) at 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking that the 1992 U.S report on Israeli gyro technology and other aspects is extremely dated. Its over 20 years old. I very much doubt its present accuracy. Also Ive found a couple of sources that indicate that Jericho 3 uses Pershing 2 guidance technology. Basically it just seems wrong. Only last month we had the Arrow 3 exo- atmospheric tests being pronounced a brilliant success. This indicates the obsolescence of the statement. I suggest we remove it. Hope you are well. Sadly my mother died on Tuesday, so I'm a bit on and off WP at the mo. Irondome (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My deepest condolences. I don't know if it's appropriate to carry on this conversation at such a sad hour, however if you wish then kindly specify which article you are referring to. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right my friend. It just stops me feeling too low at times, popping on WP. It has been a cruel blow. The worst week of my life. We were very close, my only immediate family left has gone. Thank you for your kind words. Irondome (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology re:Villemin

Apologies for not replying to you in regard to the Lem Villemin matter—the outcome is in accordance with my perspective anyway. Thanks for the communication.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, please don't apologize you're embarrassing me. It's fine, no worries :). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 10:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a seperate article on the exodus, what are your thoughts? --sarvajna (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You go ahead and I will assist you in whatever small way I can. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gilgit–Baltistan

To be honest I really can't read the whole NPOV/N discussion at once. Tell me in brief the points raised and then I will try to help you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the same issue.It's way too long and I'm badly lazy to read it all. TheStrikeΣagle 06:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly read, read that! User:Mar4d is trying to frame Gilgit-Baltistan as a territory of Pakistan and trying to omit the territorial dispute altogether. It's not about helping me, think of helping the article or the project. Read the pov-laden Proposal for changing the wording of lead sentence. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Kashmiri pandits

You have now reinserted the same contested material three times after it has been removed by different editors. That is called editwarring and is likely to get you blocked if you continue. You need to take it to the discussion page and present arguments for why this material should be included. Contested material stays out until there is a consensus to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how many of you disagree. This is not a majority rule. Provide a source that says that that "theory of Adelung is false", I won't stop until then. You may report me now if you like. See WP:BALANCE. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS please.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT COMMENT ON MY TALK IN A FEW DAYS. IF YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS LINE I WILL CONSIDER DELETING IT. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:12, 30 March 2013 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you seem to have broken 3RR. Please see my comment and consider if you will accept this offer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this on EW noticeboard. Let's continue to talk here:

I won't edit the page but only the talk and I expect you would monitor the page as a responsible admin. It's not only me who is warring. I think I must admit the bias of the majority regardless of how many sources I present? Is that what you're saying? What was inappropriate in my edit kindly clarify? (forget the numbers and focus on the content of my edit) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing Accusation of canvassing from Sitush

Heading changed to clarify the issue. Kindly don't feel offended or slighted. --Mrt3366

Comment by Sitush (talk · contribs) at 09:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be teetering on the edge of canvassing re: Kashmir Pandit. Please don't fall over it and instead work with me: you'll find me to be reasonable, knowledgeable and perfectly capable of applying policy and guidelines. You asked some questions of me and then immediately ran to EdJohnston and Yogesh Khandke to further your points, instead of waiting for my response. Methinks you do protest to much at this stage. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What did I do to give away the impression that you are not reasonable, knowledgeable or perfectly capable of applying policy and guidelines? Edjohnston was an admin whom I asked to monitor the page and Yogesh Khandke seemed to know about Gyan publishers. I sought their opinions for those reasons only I never urged them to cast their "votes" in the talk, did I?
Now they are all free to get involved at their own peril but I refuse to accept that I am canvassing! I don't doubt that you know much about policies, but how about assume good faith for a change? My net speed sucks at this time. I might not frequently or quickly respond to your queries. If you presented one I haven't seen your reply on the talk of Kashmir Pandits yet. Kindly, keep the discussion on the talk of Kashmir Pandits instead of my talk. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I read your last two comments there.
First, you referred to my comments as "usual wikilawyering" and claimed that I am "going into bullish mode" which policy is that? WP:CIVIL or WP:FOC?

"I will happily answer your usual wikilawyering after you have provided the information that I requested." - what request? Which information are you asking for? Since it's my negligence or laziness perhaps, you may clarify that bit here instead of cluttering the flow of that thread. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked for copies of the sources that remain. Your reputation for lawyering precedes you, hence WP:SPADE - and you are doing it wrt this subject matter already. Summaries such as this one do not particularly help matters when I really, really am trying to give you an opportunity despite my misapprehensions. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:NOSPADE. Focus on edits, not editors.

"The Home of the aryas" claim "Adelung who is said to be the father of comparative philology, placed the cradle of the Aryan race in the valley of Kashmir, 'the garden of the east'"..

I will have to ask you to google it kindly. "Kashmiri Pandits (or Kashmiri Brahmins) have been considered to be descendents of the so called "Aryans" in the purest from. The Aryan ancestry of the Kashmiri Brahmins has been stressed upon..." says page 1 Aloke Kumar Kalla. Kashmiri pandits and their diversity. B.R. Pub. Corp., 1985. ISBN 8170181941.. Also read, "Whether Kashmir was the cradle or Paradise of mankind or not, it can be confidently asserted that this beautiful mountainous country and the plains of Sapta-Sindhu were the cradle of the Aryan race." (my emphasis) -- Abinas Chandra Das. R̥gvedic India. p. 57. ISBN 0896843068..
Also read, if you want more, Radhey Shyam Chaurasia. History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A. D. p. 29. ISBN 812690027X. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit - Purest Aryan race theory

Hello. I am sorry to hear per my talk page about your bad internet connections. I am sure this must be frustrating. Hope it can get better. I left an explanation for my removal of the disputed sentence at the Kasmiri Pandit talk page (Section: Aryan Race Theory). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible template confusion

Comment by Rockfang (talk · contribs) at 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. When you made this edit, did you mean to link to {{Edit protected}} instead?--Rockfang (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Protected_Page_Editor.
Message added by Theopolisme at 11:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

Your last post contains an ethnic slur. I strongly urge you to redact it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There is not single word that refers to ethnicity, but nationality. If he deems it fit to hoist his national flag on his user page then I can call him a Pakistani to show that he is biased in favour of Pakistani POVs. Now he should take it as a disgrace. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I got it, you should have mentioned that you're referring to "the P-word". I redacted it, now. ;) thanksMr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Civilization Jihad

After this page was deleted all of the sudden, I worked to get it back and made edits. I saw that you had previously worked on it before it had been deleted. So if you want, feel free to watch it and help/improve if you can. The draft that is currently on there is the latest one before it was lost so luckily it didn't' lose all the edits in the previous life. Thanks. GroundRisk (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

GroundRisk

You're welcome to copy what I said over there, but I don't really think it appropriate — my comment was purely a rationale for saying why we shouldn't speedy it, and neither then nor now did/do I have an opinion on whether it should be deleted. I was simply saying "if you want this to be deleted, go to MFD", not "please take this to MFD". If you decide to copy it to the MFD, please say something like "this was his rationale for declining the speedy tag", to put it in context. Finally, note that I'll not be able to make any more responses immediately; I'm just about to leave on a 700 miles (1,100 km) trip and won't be back until around midnight (server time) Saturday/Sunday. Nyttend (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion ended as futile since Mar4d didn't bother to answer my query and explain to me the real issue here and went ahead to report me. --Mrt3366

---

Comment by Mar4d (talk · contribs) at 10:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You've crossed 3RR at Hindu Taliban, please self-revert. Mar4d (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would but it has already been reverted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you need to self-revert to the version before your fourth revert. Otherwise, you are technically past 3RR. Mar4d (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Who says that? That doesn't make any difference. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN3

Comment by Mar4d (talk · contribs) at 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Hindu Taliban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mrt3366 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

When I was blocked I wasn't at my desktop, albeit I understand my fault. If I hadn't an urgent matter that took me away, I would definitely have said that: I will not repeat my edits.

If this could have been avoided by a self-revert, then I would like to say that I was already reverted by a Sock (Kappoor who is blocked now) and thought to myself it doesn't make any difference now as I am already reverted.
I asked Mar4d also, I didn't expect him to be this quick. Anyway what's done is done I am willing to drop the stick and let us move on. I am hoping that I could be soon unblocked as I have other discussions to attend to. I, although involved in many dispute and their resolutions, have never willingly disrupted Wikipedia in fast few months. Kindly unblock me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The block is no longer necessary, so I have unblocked you. Happy editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You were explained in clear words above, the fact that you chose not to self-revert is what brought this. You know you went past 3RR, yet didn't take any concrete steps to inviolate the violation you made. At Hindu Taliban, you had four reverts and did not use the talk page once. One of your reverts was a misuse of your rollback rights. You also edit-warred with me twice on Gilgit-Baltistan article, and used CAPS LOCK edit summaries which can be perceived as shouting (whether or not you were shouting, that's something only you would know. I'm just pointing out the perception). Still putting the blame on me after all this is a bit tall. I guess I'm pretty much repeating what I stated here, but you should know that multiple mistakes were made. Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d will you please leave my talk page alone? I am not accusing you of anything. Now I am blocked so leave me alone please. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• You say "You also edit-warred with me twice on Gilgit-Baltistan article" - well, it takes two to tango. However, from my part I am trying to drop the stick and move on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Chilled beer to help you keep up the tedious work.Stay cool.Cheers. :) ---zeeyanwiki discutez 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mrt3366 likes it

Thanks. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Random header

MUTT has managed to bore me the hell out of my mind.
The following discussion has been closed by Mrt3366. Please do not modify it.
Comment by Dash RipRoc (talk · contribs) at 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) All my work is academically verifiable,I am a published author,researcher and academic. The Devlin (surname) article was previously written by a UK company that sells Coats of Arms for profit and is not based on serious academic research.I am currently researching for a book on the subject.I currently posses over twenty five verifiable researched resources on this subject.Being a Devlin myself,I feel it a slight to have erroneous information on the net about my family,I am currently a doctoral student. Okay. What do you want me to do then? Tell me I will do it, or better yet revert me if you don't agree.Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Are you editing the page Devlin (surname)? The editing information given in the article Devlin (surname) is accurate,based on verifiable acadamic sources and has been noted correctly.Why then have you edited it out? Why are you making more work for me? I am citing academic sources,that are published. See WP:COI and WP:V. Your edit didn't have discernible references. Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The edits were very comprehensively and discernibly referenced, if somewhat poorly formatted, though by an inexperienced editor. The references given would seem to be perfectly reliable sources. I don't see any aspect of COI in the edits; sharing a name with the subject hardly being an insurmountable challenge in this regard. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The page looked like : Devlin or Develon, Develin, Deveyn, Devellen, Dobhilen, Dobhailen, Dobhailean, Dobhalen, Doibhilen, Doibhelen, Doibhilein, Dhoibhilein, Dubhalen, Doibhlin, Dubhlein, Dubhlein, Dubhlin, Dubhlen, Dublein, Duiblein," offers little difficulty with respect to its origin,in what ever part of the world they may be presently located.They can trace their ultimate decent from the People of Develin, known individually as O'Develin, who lived under their chief, known as O'Develin or The O'Develin, on land situated on the extreme northeastern part of the present County of Tyrone, bordering on Lough Neagh and the Ballinderry River. The name The O'Develins claimed a common decent from Develin (in Irish: Dobhuilen i.e.Raging Valor,an Irish Nobel of the royal blood of Aileach who flourished in or about the eight century AD and was eight in decent from Owen the founder of the clan. Develin was a scion of that branch of the clan Owen known as the Sons of Erca (Cenel Mic Erca) because of their decent from Muirchertach Mac Erca,grandson of Owen. 1.Surnames of the United Kingdom,Henry Harrison 1826 :Devlin (Celtic) for the Irish O'Dobhailen =Decent of Dobhalen+Raging Valor (Dobh =boisterious,raging plus al for gal = valor,plus the diminutive suffix en") 2.Genealogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland (p36) 3.Genealogical History of Irish Families (p341) John RooneyB.W. De Courcy Both sources 2 and 3 give "defiance as the meaning of Devlin in Irish,the orthography is entirely distance from the surname 4.The Story of an Irish Sept,The Develins of Tyrone by Professor Joseph Chubbb Develin A.b.Haverford, B.Litt and D.Phil Oxford Tuttle publishing Co c 1936 I don't see where the sources are. Mutt, don't post comments on my talk I failing to assume good faith on your part since you and I are in the middle of multiple not-so-collegial conversations on different threads. I believe it is somewhat tantamount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you think that the article-reversion was incorrect, you may report me. His comments clearly demonstrate he has a WP:COI. Period. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Comment by Dash RipRoc (talk · contribs) at 15:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Their is no original research here,all sources are government and cultural referenced documents here.Prior information including the Devlin coat of arms is wrong and not given a references such as Burkes directory.I have no conflict of interest since I am a researcher and this Devlin (surname)article has been called to my attention as inaccurate and misleading. Devlin refs You are on my watchlist solely as we have had recent dialogue. I tend to keep things on my list until any issues are no longer current. I haven't taken much or any interest in other matters posted here other than the ones we have dealt with directly but your edits here seem misjudged or to have missed some of the content. I'm not interested in "reporting you", simply pointing out that the user's edits were full of references to sources, it was only their formatting of them which required much attention. To elaborate (some of which has already been drawn to your attention above): " 1.Surnames of the United Kingdom,Henry Harrison 1826 :Devlin (Celtic) for the Irish O'Dobhailen =Decent of Dobhalen+Raging Valor (Dobh =boisterious,raging plus al for gal = valor,plus the diminutive suffix en") 2.Genelogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland (p36) 3.Genelogican History of Irish Families (p341) John RooneyB.W. De Courcy Both sources 2 and 3 give "defiance as the meaning of Devlin in Irish,the orthography is entirely distance from the surname 4.The Story of an Irish Sept,The Develins of Tyrone by Professor Joseph Chubbb Develin A.b.Haverford,B.Litt and D.Phil Oxford Tuttle publishing Co c 1936" and "==References== 1.Surnames of the United Kingdom,Henry Harrison 1826 2. Genalogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland D.W. De Courcy 3.Genealogical History of the Irish Families John Rooney ... 5.Index to the Prerogative Wills of Ireland (1536-1810) 6.Calender of the State Papers,Ireland May 8,1647 7.The Story of an Irish Sept Professor Joseph Chubb Develin D.Litt 8.The Annuals of Ulster 1103" I'm completely baffled as to the nature of the COI you believe they have. Their comments may indicate some inexperience but are nonetheless not unreasonable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) MUTT leave ME alone. He said on my talk that he is himself a ″Devlin″ and you may not want to agree but that's external affiliation with the topic and a basis for COI. I already clarified that on the talk. Then, hours later, you come and revert my COI tag asking me to elaborate on the talk. I will delete anymore clutter, anymore badgering from you afterwards. I told you I don't like your comments. I don't want to get reminded about anything from you. You and I are involved in other concurrent threads and I edited that page before you then you came, I find it strangely similar to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, if you keep following me elsewhere (where you make your first edit after me) I am going to report you. I am closing this discussion I have zero interest in interacting with you and I have, thanks to your badgering, lost my interest in the article as well. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Holistic management international

Comment by Redddbaron (talk · contribs) at 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice you tagged the HMI article as a dead end. It is currently in deletion review. That's why it is a dead end. Would it be possible for you to first read the history of the article, especially the last revision before it was deleted, then read the AFD, then go to the deletion review appeal and comment? The topic is deadlocked. In fact it was deadlocked when it was deleted, even after improvements to the original article. {{talkback}} Redddbaron (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I indeed saw {{tempundelete}} but it was an honest mistake as I didn't know what it was; I thought it was some sort of a tag and usually when I tag one of the shorter pages I visit the page, read them and if needed I nominate them for deletion one way or the other, this time GOD knows I couldn't figure out which article it was maybe it's because I was getting errors and was using Stiki at the same time. Don't worry it wasn't intentional. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Comment by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) at 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mrt3366. Please avoid making personal remarks about Mar4d starting now, including (but not limited to) accusations of bad faith editing or telling him to shut up. I will start issuing escalating blocks if you do. I'm also posting this injunction on Mar4d's talk page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I won't be the first person to assume bad or to leave personal remarks against Mar4d. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

South Asia contributor award

Comment by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) at 13:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		for your outstanding work on articles related to South Asia! I may be warning you (both!), but I appreciate what you do around here. regentspark (comment) 13:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WoW! I like it very much, I thank you for taking the time out to show your appreciation. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We are slightly short of admins. So, RP has to do the good cop/bad cop routine all by himself. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's showing, hehe.. --Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok,i will read all of them carefully.It is delightful to see your bold work.Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri people

Bhojpuri is an Indo-Aryan language and Bhojpuri is the mother tongue of Bhojpuri people. Moreover, Bhojpuri people belongs to Kashi region, one of the prominent site of Vedic civilisation by Rgvedic Aryan people. So both ethnically and linguistically, these peoples can be grouped as Indo-Aryan people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditbh (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like your personal research. Wikipedia doesn't allow that. To demonstrate that you are not adding your own research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the claim being made by the article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence says

1. Bhojpuri is an Indo-Aryan language ← Yvalid

   and

2. Bhojpuri is the mother tongue of Bhojpuri people. ←Yvalid
   But are you aware that you're mixing the two claims to reach the following conclusion?
3. ″Bhojpuri people are of Indo-aryan descent″ ←Ninvalid without a proper source (I couldn't find one in English BTW),

   is there a source that explicitly says so? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Arihant-class submarine

It seems as if you are not only a recent, prolific editor to this article, but to Indian military articles in general. This is why I ask your opinion on the current status of the afore-mentioned article. I have done some referencing work on this article, and seek to nominate this article for GA status. I humbly ask your opinion first. If you want, we could even do a joint nomination. Thanks for your help! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the reliability of contents that is covered by criteria 1 and 2, I believe it is okay. Any issues with the criteria 3, 4 and 5 may be easily surmounted. But the pre-requisite media files and illustrations (i.e. criteria 6) can prove to be the problem. See WP:GACR. There are not many images, let alone media files, available you know. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering the classified nature of the whole project, I don't think images should be a problem... Also 5-1 is fine too.. :) TheStrikeΣagle 04:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest Strike Eagle? Should we go ahead? Will you help? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, count me in. Many statements in the article were contradicting to each other. I have been trying to fix them...Will tell you once I feel it is good to go. Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 05:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL see this!! TheStrikeΣagle 05:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we use any of these images to illustrate the structure of the submarine? [2], [3], [4]? Under fair use or something? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think using them would be possible, considering no other submarine articles use them in such way...I think the current image(s) should suffice. Or maybe can you try to draw the image yourself? I have seen that you have done many such projects! Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Count me in for a joint nomination! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I have added some images to the article. They do not depict the sub, but infrastructure used to construct the sub. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the article. Due to technical limitations it shows only my name as the nominator but it doesn't matter who the nominator is! It is all about the contributors and you both are there! TheStrikeΣagle 15:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! If you want, you could place beneath the nomination a note stating this is a cooperative nomination. See Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_3:_Waiting QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)