User talk:Saddhiyama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You asked for references that refer to the event as a war. I provided four sources, and I could have provided more. Now, you're trying to create a stupid technicality? Are you serious? B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion has not ended, and noone has come up with a consensus continued reversion is edit warring. Not to mention your persistence in reverting throughout the discussion and not heeding warnings not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. B-Machine (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For rendering exceptional assistance at the Help desk. Cheers! —Eustress talk 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I am sorry If I have made a mistake. I removed it when I noticed, that the article has been improved and rewritten several times since the template was added, so maybe it is no longer necessary? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits done since the tag was placed December 2009, and although some literature has been added and some of the sections has been expanded, the article is still badly in need of citations. However the "Expert"-tag is probably not needed anymore, so I replaced it with a "Citations"-tag instead. I would encourage you to use edit summary in the future, especially when removing tags, it can easily be misunderstood by others when done without any explanation. Cheers.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem

I would be very grateful if you could tell me what your problem is. Thanking you in advance.Harrypotter (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect you are referring to my reversal of your edit? The interwiki-links that you added to the unbelief-article was more or less the interwikis that was already tied to the en-wiki infidel-article. And I see no good reason why they suddenly had to be changed to the "unbelief" article when "infidel" is clearly the correct translation for them (at least for the interwiki-articles that I understand, which is about half of them). "Unbelief" is not the English equivalent of "vantro", "infiel", "ongelovige" or "hedning", but "infidel" are, and I suspect the same goes for the rest of the interwiki articles that you added. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:7mike5000

Any idea why he would use your username here? (Towards the bottom) --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why. He seems to have copied an edit of mine from April 9 2009, but why he has done that I don't know. By checking the user page of User:TeamZissou to whom my edit was a reply I can see that he has a history with that editor, so perhaps there is a connection there? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the ANI which prompted your question, and as far as I can see 7mike5000 is using my statement as a quote in his argument with TeamZissou to prove that "a smart mouth isn't uncommon for [TeamZissou]". I would have preferred not to be dragged into that conflict, for my part any disagreement I might have had with TeamZissou is a closed chapter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, Anthony seems to have sorted it now anywho. Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of possible interest

of possible interest --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo Casanova

My supposed edit of this person, I'm sorry but I've never even heard of this person never mind looked at his wikipedia page. During the supposed time of this edit 20th July, the internet wasn't working in our house, our hub was broken and we had no access, so quite how someone was able to access the internet using this IP I don't know. Very strange. I can assure you, it wasn't from someone in our house. Our connection is encrypted as well. Could the IP have been assigned to someone else during this period due to the internet not being active in my house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.159.89 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Just checking through past edits. Up until 18th of August our household IP address was 86.134.153.191, you can view my recent edits and it's only since some period beyond the 18th of August has the IP address of my house been 86.134.159.89. So on July 20th, the IP 86.134.159.89 did not belong to our house and was someone elses.

It is ok. No need to worry about it. IP-adresses are not necessarily reserved for the same computers, so it was most likely made from another user on another computer who used that IP-address at the time. At Wikipedia we acknowledge this, so warnings on the talk-page of IP-users that are older than a month are not cumulative and can generally be considered as void. However, if you want to avoid warnings to your IP-user address from edits that you did not do, I would encourage you to make an account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages

Thanks for tagging Max Chopper Liebow just now; but there is a better way to do it. For an attack page, what you should do is blank the whole page (to get it off the screen quickly) and replace it with {{db-attack}} - or {{db-atk}} or {{db-g10}} which are equivalent. That puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and also generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Generally, for speedy deletion nominations, you should use one of the standard templates like {{db-person}} or {{db-band}} or {{db-copyvio}} which are listed at WP:CSD. If there isn't one that fits, then the page is probably not speediable and may have to go to PROD or AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tips. I must admit that the idea that it was an attack page had not occurred to me, I thought it was more along the lines of a hoax or something in that vein. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: What is vandalism and what isn't

Look, I know that the edit we're fighting over isn't exactly productive but Rcool35 is not an editor per say. He is a banned vandal who has done many malicious edits to hip-hop articles and articles pertaining to the Mexican War. His user page and the link in my IP linking directly to a list of IP's he uses should be useful. I'm generally warry of his edits because most of the edits to articles pertaining to the Mexican War are not helpful or useful at all, even the edits he does to hip-hop articles mainly contribute of edits that violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NPOV. He's even threatened to be affiliated with the Mexican Gangs and kill me.

Looking back, I did not realize that the edit I reverted too was vandalism, so I guess it's not Rcool35. However, he is not a Wikipedia user per say, he is a vandal who ultimately hinders Wikipedia and shows no signs of ever being a community member anytime soon. Again, sorry for the inconvience. Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk removal

When you delete a response of mine ([1]), could you please leave a not on my talkpage, so that I know where it went, who deleted it, and why? Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Library_of_Congress

Just so you know I've decided to remove my words about Shias in that discussion.[2]--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes to the article.

Oh, I was just seeing whether people would be blinded by the references. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance

Tolerance of error is not nonsense. The are many scientific studies that have a margin of error. Tolerance allows for many errors. I would appreciate you reverting the change you have done to the post on Tolerance on Sunday, September 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to revert. Stating that "In general usage, "tolerance" is the [sic] allow something to stay even if it is slightly wrong." implies a value judgement that is not part of the general concept of tolerance, and is thus a wrong interpretation of the term. I will retract my warning though, as I can see that your edit was made in good faith. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How kind and tolerant you are of my "error". You have just proven to be merciful but not tolerant because you have reverted the correct statement under the guise of kindness. I know that you have no idea what is mercy, judgement or tolerance. But who cares, right, you are TOLERANT or INTOLERANT!??? There is a right and a wrong whether you agree or not. See Absolutes if you need philosophy, Mr Grand Budda that does not exist. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to the talk page of toleration, you will need to establish consensus before adding your changes to the lede of that article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy

Hello. Thank you for informing me of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have posted a response. --Tiiischiii (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Chain

Thanks for speedy-tagging this. Most detected hoaxers just fade away, but this one actually asked why it was deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Catherine II of Russia

The overview section on the article Catherine II of Russia was not needed, and I will post a valid reason for deleting it. Please don't revert it again. --Calthrina450 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a disputed move, you will need to post your reasons for deleting it on the talk page of the article before you delete it again.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason for volunteering on the Reference Desk

I really liked your statement of the reason for volunteering on Reference Desk: the enjoyment of acquiring and sharing knowledge. That's exactly right! My feeling exactly. Marco polo (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am pleased that there are others sharing those sentiments. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, thanks for adding text to Peter Collett (writer). That's a good thing. However I used a specific source and when you inserted text right before it, it now looks like all of the information comes from that source. Which it does not. But I went ahead and fixed it. And oh, thanks for making the category too. Geschichte (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I figured your citation was only meant to source the last part about the emigration. There is a more detailed source in the Danish Biographical Dictionary article to be found here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

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

--Soman (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"OP"

What does "OP" mean? Does it mean "operator"? HeyMid (contribs) 12:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for being unclear. It means "original poster". It refers to User:Voluptuous Nature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but I felt unsure, as you are not the only one who mentions that abbreviation. HeyMid (contribs) 13:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk

It's OK that you removed my answer, although it had some proper link it to a relevant article. Quest09 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)

That works better. Do you reckon it may even be worth listing the case in the introductory paragraph? Egg Centric (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure it belongs in the lede in such detail, but it would certainly work better to incoorporate the information in the actual article text somewhere, instead of having it in the citation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How's about that? Looks like quite a lot needs doing to that article! Egg Centric (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one violating the wiki guide line

The passage in dispute is unsourced and controversial. If an unsourced passage comes into dispute you should delete it first until the original writer comes with a reputable source. -- Baiyaan (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)baiyaan

Since you did not state any reason for your deletion of the sentence until you had recieved your third warning for unexplained deletion, the reversion of your edits was completely acceptable. You have still not taken the issue you are objecting to to the article talk page, instead you have chosen a course of personal accusations against the editors that reverted you. This is the last time I ask you to take the issue to the article talk page, and explain your problem with the specific sentence there. Who knows, I may even agree with you, but until know I have not had a chance to decide on the matter, since you haven't explained what the actual problem is. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Touch Screen Page

I confess that I do not understand your reasons for undoing my edits on the history of touch screens. You state "We need reliable secondary sources for this claim, not primary sources". Perhaps we have a terminology problem here. Secondary sources are hearsay. Primary sources are the original source. So, despite my citing two articles from the peer reviewed literature that clearly extablish the history and precedence of invention, you choose to give priority to information based on a secondary (that is, hearsay) source from a journalist who got her information verbally, with no documentation, from a sales person from a company started by the person who was previously (and then restored by you) credited with invention 6 years after the actual invention appeared in the literature.

I do not understand. But, perhaps it is because my wording was not clear. Based on that assumption, repectfully, I have undone your your UNDO, and then editted my text so as to more clearly cite and explain my primary sources.

What I would ask is that if you are contemplating reverting back to the previous text, that you first contact me <email redacted> in order to explain your rationale.

Be clear, we both want the same thing: for the entry to be as accurate as possible, with what is stated backed up by credible references that support the assertions made on the page.

Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia applies reliable secondary sources in order to avoid original research and synthesis. That means we mainly have to rely on secondary (or "hearsay" as you put it) sources for our information. This can pose problems with topics that, for some reason or other, have only superficially or not at all been the subject of newsreports or academic studies. This is a problem that seems especially prevalent when it comes to articles on technology. Your cited source is certainly reliable, and for certain information it can also be considered a secondary source. But concerning the question of who came first, simply because it does not itself concern itself with this question, to extrapolate that information from it would constitute synthesis.

However, since the Wikipedia article is poorly sourced as it is, and rules should not prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I would not mind it being used as a source for that information, until hopefully you or someone else finds a better (reliable and secondary) source.

Btw I have redacted your email, as we do have examples of visible email adresses on Wikipedia have been targetted by spammers. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Points well taken. I have a magazine reference to the system that is not written by the inventor and will add. All the best. Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

@reversal of "Intellectual"

The basic definition of intellectual is incomplete and needs to be changed. If you do not like my addition than please write it in your own words but intellectual is commonly referred to an intelligent thinker without experience. A doctor would not be an intellectual since the doctor has a profession. One that is not a doctor but thinks intelligently about medicine would be an intellectual. Thanks.

Btw, Im an intellectual and not a professional in many fields so Im very knowledgeable of the definition at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but we don't use "commonly referred to" or personal experience as sources in Wikipedia. We need reliable secondary sources. Your edits has been challenged, so it is up to you to find sources that corroborate your claims in order to achieve a consensus for the addition of them to the article. You are welcome to use the talk page of the article to discuss this and present your sources there. Thanks. PS: I have struck my warning, since your edit seems to have been made in good faith. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

I have done what you asked. You can read my point in the discussion. Gregghouse (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Konguboy

Hello. Even after warning & blockage, this user is still editing Tamil Kshatriya page without any discussion. It is not normal... Is it possible to fully protect this page (in its initial version) ?Rajkris (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

countries not entirely in Europe

Thanks for our message and apologies for terse posting. My question is specifically related to the article content: why are France and Spain not in blue font on the map? Brownturkey (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic AFD comments

(I moved it here from the AFD since you weren't commenting on the article)

Isn't this an example of a user violating their topic ban? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no restrictions at all, and haven't had for a while, the admin got it wrong.Rememberway (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. However you did get a friendly piece of advice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a bog-standard dicdef, and I'm under no restrictions.Rememberway (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Valeriy Borchin

Borchin cheating news was a mistake. The names given of the cheaters initially named Borchin but it was actually Viktor Burayev who was caught for cheating. Hence the news initially named Borchin as one of the race walkers banned.

Initial reports were WRONG.

http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=2747&section=latestnews

The 3 banned walkers were: Kanyakin, Burayev and Voyevodin. This directly relates to the 2008 doping incident hence why Borchin was allowed to compete and keep his medal.

This information on the page is highly speculative. If he was doped he would have been banned. Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrosian63 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, I don't know the particulars of the case. But instead of just deleting the entire sourced section altogether, you will need to rewrite it to reflect this turn of events. And remember to include reliable sources to back up your edits. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Sorry about that. Donno what happened there. I didn't mean to step on your toes there. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. From reading your post above mine I figured you had some problems with Twinkle as well and that it was just part of the test process. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this Problem?

You deleted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Worldpremiere_Johnny_Depp_12.05.2011_Westfield_London? 62.200.86.169 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, and as has been explained to your previously, you should not use the discussion page of an article for insertion of material (relevant or irrelevant to the subject matter). The discussion page is solely for discussion of the article. If you are collecting information for adding to the article you should register an account and make a page for it in your own userspace. That way you can keep this information as long as you want and noone will bother you about it. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert

hi. By doing what you did, you were arguably in violation of WP:Bold and WP:OWN. And the general recommendation of simply NOT reverting simply because you personally don't like it or "don't think it's necessary." If it's a) good-faith, b) accurate, and c) sourced (I was planning on putting references to that soon), then technically just blatantly reverting just because of personal taste is arguably a violation of WP policy. The suggestion is simply NOT to revert. Especially without discussing it. You don't own this article, so it does NOT MATTER that you don't think a table or timeline is "necessary". It's already understood that the facts and and points are in the rest of the article. NO KIDDING. So what? I'm well aware that they're all in the rest of the article itself. But for a quick run-down and reference, for casual readers, or those who may not have time to mill through whole article...something like that is arguably useful. What's the big problem with it, to warrant disrespectful deleting of hard work in putting it there? The fact is deleting is actually against WP policy without talking first... Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have written to you about bold, revert, discuss on your talk page. While I understand your frustration about others not appreciating fully something that may have taken you a long time to put together, I would also like to suggest you to be less personal about these kind of disputes, it is more constructive in the long run. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit could have and should have been left alone. That's really the bottom line. It was accurate, good-faith, and (was gonna be sourced minutes later). Imposing personal tastes, and removing whole edits, willy nilly, is not cool or respectful, and arguably even violation of WP policy and recommendation. Also, I notice that there's a lot of politics within Wikipedia. Meaning, for example, that if you and I had a pre-RAPPORT in the past, and did edits together on this, and if you knew me, and liked me, and we were online friends, and trusted me, and we were cool with each other, and vouched for my other edits, etc etc....I can ALMOST guarantee that if I put the SAME timeline again, you probably would have left it alone. (Most likely). Because a lot of what goes on is personal politics and relations, and rapport and inter-working build-ups, etc. Which is understandable in a way. Since we're all human. I'm just saying... Side-point. Anyway, regardless, bro...I meant NO harm to the article at all, and it's already understood that the facts are already there, in the rest of the article. Timelines are NOT to add to but to give a quicker reference, for people who may not have time to mill through whole article. They're handy and useful. With no real "need" to be removed. Also, again, check out WP:0RR. Click that and see what it says. Interesting stuff. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure you meant no harm to the article, and I was also careful to state in the edit summary that yours was a good faith edit. The problem was not the lack of citations, but that I deem the chronological table superflous and frankly unencyclopedic. The removal however did not violate any policies, and was completely within the bold, revert, discuss-cycle. I am sorry this incident has caused you disappointment, but that is sometimes the result when one is being bold. I can only advice you to discuss major edits on the talk page before doing them, that way you learn the general consensus about them and avoid any surprises. Cheers. PS: 0RR is not relevant here since it only applies to articles or editors that have been placed under certain restrictions, which is not the case here. It is 3RR that applies here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link. I was not referring to restrictions imposed on editors, and it was the wrong article I gave, of "edit warring." I meant to give you (something you MIGHT NOT know about all that well) was the "Zero-revert rule" in the article "revert only when necessary." Where it says "only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while preserving the information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page." You really didn't do that, but just simply reverted only cuz you thought the timeline wasn't necessary or "not encyclopedic". Which you're actually wrong about.

There's NO "rule" that says timelines are not to be in encyclopedias. You're just making that uptight nonsense up. To be frank. Imposing your own tastes, in contradiction to clear evidence where "timelines" are in other WP articles. If time tables are "not encyclopedic" how do you explain that? And this is NOT "WP:OTHERSTUFF", as I'm not saying that that "other stuff" was wrong. But rather referring to CONSISTENCY IN WHAT IS DONE CORRECTLY...AND IN GOOD FAITH. There happens to be a whole article called "Timeline of the French Revolution" that the other editor told me about. Which is fine. I was just making the point that a "timeline" can add benefit and use and quick reference to certain readers who may not have time all the time to mill through whole article to get key facts, dates, and points. As a timeline summation might be able to do towards end of article.

It's already understood that the points and facts are in the rest of the article. That's a "duh" point, and not even the point. Summation timelines etc are simply there to supplement FOR THE PURPOSE of a quick reference, and contrary to what was said about "casual readers", they do go on WP articles sometimes to get certain facts on a thing. Can't be too uptight, is my point.

Anyway, again, I gave you the wrong link, I meant the other one of "revert only when necessary", which arguably you actually didn't. You reverted good-faith accurate things simply because you didn't like it and didn't think it was necessary. Without discussing on article talk or my talk. Which is AGAINST WP recommendation and drift. (Especially "zero revert".) Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Zero revert is not a policy, but part of an essay. I am getting a bit fed up with your constant accusations of bad faith and your misinterpretation of policy. If you have anything to say against the revert take it to the talk page of the article, this is not the place for it. Since you are so busy accusing other editors of not using the article talk page I find it ironic that you haven't yet bothered going there once to explain yourself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It IS a general RECOMMENDATION of Wikipedia, and the article is "Revert only when necessary"... Whether it's an out-an-out "policy" or just a strong WP "recommendation", is not the big point. But that you did NOT HAVE TO "revert" that sample time-table, in that article. It did NOT hurt the article, or make it "too long". That timeline itself was not that long.

I personally only revert obvious vandalism, or blatantly inaccurate additions, etc. Even if something is not sourced (yet) that I see put in an article that I'm interested in, I won't mess with the edit. Because who the hell am I to undo someone else's good-faith (and accurate) addition or work, simply because I may not be totally thrilled with it? ("Zero-revert rule", in other words.) I don't care how "fed up" you are, as this is mainly your doing in the first place. The point is that you do NOT "own" the article, yet you kinda acted like you did. In violation (whether you wanna see it that way or not, or admit or not) of "WP:OWN". (And also arguably against "WP:Revert only when necessary" and "Zero-revert rule".)

I merely was trying to tell you that I gave you the wrong link, and I was simply correcting that and expounding on it, and clarifying it. Don't whine that I call you out on your rude nonsense, and your made-up "rule" that somehow timelines are "not encyclopedic". You dodged that point, I notice, and you failed to point out just HOW timelines in articles are "not encyclopedic." Can you cite me an actual "rule" (not a general opinion, but a hard WP rule etc...like "neutrality" and "reliable sources"...or maybe an actual hard "policy"?) Other WP articles sometimes have timelines in them. Your opinion that they're "not encyclopedic" is just that...YOUR OPINION. And not enough to blatantly revert. You went against that general drift ("essay" or not...it's there for a reason in "Revert only when necessary")

What you did was NOT "necessary", but just because you personally thought one way. Not cool, and NOT necessary. I'm FED UP when stuff like that happens. I don't do that crap to others. Yet you (in your infinite uptightness) felt the need to do that rude thing. In violation of "zero-revert" or "only vandalism and inaccurate" and "wp:own". MY ONLY POINT. I didn't bring this to the article talk, cuz I didn't care anymore, and it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway, seeing the group think that was going on. And I saw that probably "WP:Consensus" (which is a WP policy) would over-rule the "revert only when necessary" point. So it would not have mattered. I'm only writing now in response to your last comment. Bye. 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you "don't care anymore", I find it interesting that you still take your time to flood my talk page with your repeated misinterpretations of Wikipedia essays and your unwarranted accusations of bad faith. This is leading nowhere, so I consider this conversation over. For clarity's sake I will just say that as per the policy of WP:bold, revert, discuss (which you seem still not to have read) I reserve my right to revert major bold undiscussed edits if I deem them a net negative to the article. Have a good day. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your made-up "rule" that somehow timelines are "not encyclopedic". You dodged that point, I notice, and you failed to point out just HOW timelines in articles are "not encyclopedic." Can you cite me an actual "rule" (not a general opinion, but a hard WP rule etc...like "neutrality" and "reliable sources"...or maybe an actual hard "policy"?) Other WP articles sometimes have timelines in them. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Problem_on_the_Mein_Kampf_Page_Discussion.3B_.22_Editor.22_Saddhiyami

I just thought you might want to know that your *correct* reverts have been complained about. Naraht (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Which movies was it?

The movies were Mr. Popper's Penguins and Zookeeper. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I am going to look for them, since I always find it interesting to see how popular culture portray Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of wars 2003-2010

I've witnessed something i can relate as WP:OR and WP:OWNER on this page, possibly by user named B-machine, who didn't answer my clarification request on his edits. What was your experience and outcome of editing the page? See here [3].Greyshark09 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my experience was that of an editor having ownership issues with the article to the point of openly stating that he would edit war over it. As well as him putting the burden of proof upon other editors, despite himself making claims that was inadequately sourced. I sensed an editor who was extremely combative, and at the time I did not have the time or energy to go further in the dispute, so I simply unwatched the article and let him have his way with it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tunø and Endelave and the English Frigate

Hej Saddhiyama - We have just been "talking" on the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) page about Fredericksværn, which was very interesting as an example of information "Lost in Translation", and for which many thanks. I also see your main page is Danish, whereas my Danish is only passable.

Can I ask for your experienced eye to look at my first ever article for Wikipedia viz. HMS Falcon (1802) which has a link to numerous transcribed sources at Falcon's website. I feel that there is a lot of good stuff in Falcon's website that could mature into a good article in Danish, if I could interest you or anyone with whom you have contact. I live in hope of seeing this work expand into wider knowledge. Comments and questions welcome. mvH Viking1808 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, but my field of knowledge is not naval history I am afraid. On Danish Wikipedia you may benefit from contacting User:Necessary Evil, who is very active on naval articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mange Tak. I will try that Viking1808 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej! Superfast service these Danes give you! The article can now be read on Danish Wikipedia as HMS Falcon (1802) thanks to User:Necessary Evil. He jokes about English propaganda, but translating and balancing both sides of the story needs care. Mange tak mvH Viking1808 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What?!

So because I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years as an IP and then as Camelbinky and because I'm very active on creating/editing policies and guidelines and keeping the WP:5P in their proper place, and working at the Village pump proposals and policies pages, and at the OR/N and RS/N all of which are integral to creating and wording policy you think it is wrong of me to mention that I was instrumental in changing and aspect of policy and therefore know intimately what it is meant?! I think it was important to state since the editor I was disagreeing with kept saying I was misinterpreting policies. Policies I worked on getting the wording to where it currently is at. I dont take full credit, it was a team effort of back and forth and compromising. Policies are constantly evolving and may be used in ways the group of us that wrote (or re-wrote) them ever thought. And that's fine. But I wont stand for someone to say I'm misinterpreting or that my interpretation is illegitimate when I was there at the talk page working hard for weeks or sometimes months coming up with a compromise to get wording to reflect as accurately as possible the current prevailing method of doing something.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. I merely wondered at your wording of the statement "I had the optional part removed long ago", which made it sound like you singlehandedly changed the policy. From your reply above I guess it was more in the form of active participation and support in the process of changing of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper: Please help!

Hi. The reason I had the mention of circulation of newspapers in India in the Advertising section is because the article (and the American and British public, I believe) tend to see the current state of the newspaper business in the US and UK vis a vis the internet, and assume that this is the case world-wide. I edited the article after hearing Tom Standage interviewed on a local radio station, where he pointed out that readership in India is increasing, whereas in Brazil (where, apparently, a higher percentage of people have high-speed internet than in India) it's been increasing but is now on a plateau.

If you are knowledgeable about newspapers in India, or know somebody who is, I think it would be useful to add some information on that. This article is much too Anglo-centric. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the first thing about Indian newspapers, so I don't think I can help you there. I see what you were going for and it sounds like a good idea to include the information that the delvovement of circulations is not global. But I fear that just adding the circulation figure of India will leave the reader confused (as I was). You will need to elaborate the scenario in the article, because the reader will wonder if that particular figure is high or low, and what it is compared to other countries. I would assume there was some sources out there that mentions the global newspaper circulation figures by country, or even better, a reliable source that specifically mentions that this trend is particular for the Western countries (just in order to avoid risk of WP:SYNTH). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to mark the article as having a narrow view (the {{globalize}} tag??? see Media bias for an example). I'm fairly new to this. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means go ahead. But since some of the sections in the article does contain information on international matters you will probably need to specify on the talk page which sections you find particularly problematical. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of french revolution

Sorry, I have not noticed that the French revolution -chronology - has dedicated page, I'm accepting your point.--Stephfo (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Hello there! I would like to point out that in my last edit on the 2011 Norway attacks article I did not delete anything. Please read the whole revision summary next time. Cheers. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) All is in order. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. I don't know how but I must have misread the diff, and I realise it was completely unwarranted. I have retracted it, and I am sorry for the incovenience. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik & zionism

You're saying we should add Breivik's political beliefs, but he has hundreds! How is it possible to add them all?! Would you also support adding that he supports the following political movements: NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan, Sixth Republic of South Korea etc. and many more. Are you willing to add them all to the lead? Imagine what the lead would look like if we added all that to the intro? It does not make sense to add zionism to the lead Pass a Method talk 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are reliable mentions of him supporting an ideology, yes. But most of the ones you list there are just him admiring or praising various political parties, no claims of him subscribing to a particular ideology. The crusader-thing seems to figure high in his beliefs, so that ought to be included in the lead as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Russophobia

Sorry, I edited the article and I'll add some cites. Cheers.--俠刀行 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It is always important to add sources, but even more so when the subject is so potentially contentious. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto

"If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past. (p. 1344)"

This is a quote from Breivik manifesto, which has been removed many times by the Christian activists on the page, who are trying to withhold that Breivik was a Christian using as sources articles from Fundamentalist Christian media such as FoxNews. Please restore my edits. --79.31.25.106 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as stated on top of the article talk page the manifesto should not be used as a source for statements in the article, since it is a primary source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak

Sorry, The new Safari is kinda fucked up so that was an error :S Sorry again -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. That explains it. No worries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

JIDF

Would you like to tell me what is POV about this edit [4] ? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1st known use

it would be impossible to have a 2nd source also be the first known use, it would naturally be the 2nd known use. also, since there is no earlier mention of the term in the history section, it would be the earliest known in wikipedia. either way, the burden is on you as the deletionist to make your case the edit was not, the 1st known use. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Especially the terms "primary and secondary sources". I suggest you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. A secondary source is a scholarly or otherwise reliable secondary treatment of primary sources. It could be a general history of the subject written by a known scholar or published at a well-established publisher. A history of socialism tracing the early roots might contain the sentence "The first known use of the word is ....". That is a secondary source.

You only provided the primary source, the source that you claim to be the earliest known use of the term. Since we have no authority but your word that this is the first known use, it constitutes original research, since the claim of a random wikipedian that that is so is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. As such I have made "my case", and your claim that I have to find an earlier use before I can remove your sentence is false.

Also, for the last time, since this is a article subject discussion please keep it on the talk page of the article in question. Your habit of keeping these discussions on the talk pages of editors is unconstructive, since it keeps editors interested in the subject from following relevant discussions. In the future I will not respond queries made by you on my talk page if it is a purely article subject related matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

it is also your responsibility to fix the edit instead of revert. if the source i included met the criteria of a rs, you should have left the material that qualified. for the other material which you accused me of OR, normally an editor should place a tag and discuss before deleting the "1st known use part". comments on your talk page are editing tips for you, not article discussion, however you have my blessing to move or delete. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

e-mail

Hello, Saddhiyama. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse

Excuse for former vandalizing your site. 85.17.190.71 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation at Nazism

Hi Saddhiyama, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to comment in the informal mediation thread that I started at Talk:Nazism#Informal mediation? As one of the main contributors to the article, we really need your input to have a good chance of resolving the issues there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How does wiki system identifies people die?

Pardon my English. My question, a person who is Mr.User:JuJube, was dead over 1 year. How did the wikipedia system identify his death?--俠刀行 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of the editor you link to. The revision history of the userpage does provide some links that apparently confirms the information about the death of the editor (specifically the edit summaries of the users Master Bigode and Chamal N). I suspect this edit by an anonymous IP (probably a real-life friend of the deceased) on JuJubes talk page gave the two named editors a hint about this. If you are interested in further reading on the subject we also have a page named Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines providing information about the usual procedure regarding deceased Wikipedians. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an official notification on the Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians, see the archived post here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet (legend)

Saddhiyama, your edit adds a statement that the burial mound at Ammelhede is from the bronze age and implies that it therefore could not be the burial place of Saxo's Amleth. While the mound may or may not be the burial place of Saxo's Amleth, the implication of the edit is misleading because there are well-documented cases of bronze age burial mounds being re-used for new burials in Denmark during the time frame in which Amleth is supposed to have lived according to Saxo. A sentence noting such re-use was added with a citation to a reputable source, but you then deleted that sentence and the citation leaving just your own sentence. Please reconsider the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.242.210 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Deism Deletion

You posted a warning on my talk page about deleting content from the Deism page without posting a good reason in the edit summary. But I did explain myself in the edit summary. Go take a look. --71.203.94.83

I know. And I probably could have picked a better suited warning. But "This is a piece of vicious slander by liberal historians based on junk history" is a personal opinion and not a sufficient reason to delete sourced material. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop Islamisation of Europe

Calling SIOE a Hate organization is no more "personal" then calling Al Qaeda a Terrorist Organization see refs of sister/partner group in America:

www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm

www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/25/2011-02-25_southern_poverty_law_center_lists_antiislamic_nyc_blogger_pamela_geller_follower.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.stevenson3 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting multiple edits

Hi, Saddhiyama. I was just about to start manually removing those four edits to Voltaire's life when you did it wholesale. Would you mind letting me in on how to do that? Thanks, Awien (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I use Twinkle. An excellent tool for vandalism fighting. If the edits are done consecutively by the same editor, it will revert them all. I do also have rollback rights, which of course will do the same, but I find myself using Twinkle more often, since it also automatically opens the talk page of the reverted editor and allows for a wide range of warnings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check that out. Awien (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dueling is legal in araguay claim.

I have reverted your removal of this claim. It is widespread, and I have now added 4 references to it. It's not unlikely that someone wanting to check on this claim would come to Wikipedia to verify it.--Dmol (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first one is hardly an reliable or a notable source for this claim, and I can't verify the other 3 cites you added, but I do appreciate you at least took the time to add some cites to the unsourced edit about an urban legend which I reverted. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree with the principles of your edit, though, and has raised the question on the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned

At WP:AN Here--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please be careful This edit summary simply reads "rvv" which in my experience is short for "reverting vandalism." If that is what you meant, you are mistaken--the previous edit was not vandalizing the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It was meant to be "reverting vandalism" since it was a blanket reversion of the previous three edits (to last version by 11614soup), because the first one was vandalism that changed a number of individual words. Since I wasn't sure all the words had been reverting I simply went back to the first stable version before the vandalism. Turns out the other two diligent IPs actually had removed all the vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That IP had vandalised

he is a peice of shit wasting other people's time. he needs to be told.

To a certain extent I can sympathise with your reaction, but we do not personally attack other editors, not even vandals. Also, many vandals are mere trolls, and such a response will likely only encourage their behaviour. The correct approach is to apply the fitting official talk page warning to their talk page. This has the added bonus that it may scare (or bore) the vandal so that he or she stops, or if not, then they will soon work their way to a final warning, and if they continue end up getting blocked. You might find the Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism page helpful. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

relative's names

Hi, how did you call your wife's father and mother in English? Other case, how about your husband's father and mother (if you're married and have to call them someday)? It's all different in Chinese, indonesian and some other Asian languages.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to say cheers! Pardon my rudeness for Japanese politeness :( --俠刀行 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The father and mother of your wife would be called father-in-law and mother-in-law. I am assuming you mean engagement with the term "handband"? I do believe that the parent-in-law term can be applied to them as well, however I am not sure whether it is technically correct (whether it is first technically correct to call them in-laws after the marriage). I am sorry I can't be more precise, but English is not my first language, but I am sure you would get a more elaborate answer if you pose the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. They love to answer such questions, and are very knowledgable people. I hope my answer was helpful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here. I happened to still have Saddhiyama's talk page on my watchlist. Maybe I can clarify a couple of points for both of you. We refer to either a wife or a husband's parents as father-in-law and mother-in-law. When we refer to father-in-law and mother-in-law together, typically we say in-laws (My in-laws are coming to visit). Nowadays we normally address them by their given names (Hello, Mary. I'm so glad you could come.). Do feel free to ask me any further questions on my talk page if you think I can help. Awien (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Any time. Awien (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not notable?

Hi you added the "does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music" to Sexy Zone's page however they do acoroding to WP:MUS meet several of the criteria including: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.' The group have been featured on the cover of mutiple popular japanese magazines including Myojo, Popolo and duet. They also meet this critia: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At number 1, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" The group has been heavily featued on both a show about the vollyball world cup and A cable reality show.

I think the article could have better refrences, since most english info on the is only fan info, but I think they count as notable. So can I take out the WP:MUS sign? DSQ (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You will need to post this information on the talk page of the article, so others interested in the subject can weigh in. However, on the face of it it seems they do indeed meet the notability criteria. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move this thread. Thanks for the help. :) DSQ (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Templates

I followed the link to the vandalism templates you mentioned. There are like a bazillion of them. Is there an easy way to use these things or do you have to memorize them all? I'm happy to try and use them but at first glance they seem rather daunting. Any advice? --News Historian (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it can be a bit confusing. I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, a tool which automatically leads you to the talk page of the editor after you have reverted them and has a build-in easy to use menu that includes a list where you can choose the level (between 1-4) and reason for the warning. It then automatically places the signed warning on their talk page with an appropriate heading. As you can see it makes it so much easier to use warnings.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent. Automation is good. I'll check it out. Thanks for the help. --News Historian (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Steen Andersen Bille

Hi! Could you please look at the new section Steen Andersen Bille on my talk page. You may be able to help me! Viking1808 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Yeah, I reverted my edit on Public sphere back. Not feeling like we're on the same page about your rationale for reverting it within mere hours of the edit.
First of all, you say my edit "did not appear to be constructive"? It appeared to be very constructive. Even without checking the factual validity of my edit, on the surface, just from the appearances of it, it didn't look like vandalism at all. I was changing a link to an existing article, not a red link, and the photo caption mentioned a "tea protest" and the link was to a page with "Tea Party" in the title. So, whether or not my edit was academically accurate, I take issue with the claim that it appeared to be vandalism. To someone just glancing at the edit, it would appear perfectly acceptable.
Now, to go a little deeper, not only did my edit not appear to be vandalism, but it wasn't vandalism. The picture illustrates a historical drawing of the women who participated in the 1775 Edenton Tea Party. Not the Boston Tea Party, as the link suggested, but the simultaneous Edenton Tea Party, which (as the picture's caption stated long before my "vanadalism-appearing" edit) occured in Edenton, North Carolina, not in Boston, which is in Massachusetts. For your information, Boston wasn't the only Tea Party, as whoever linked that caption before me assumed. And I can almost understand you assuming I had made a mistake...if the link I put in had been red. But it wasn't, it was a blue link, to an article about a Tea Party other than Boston, proving they existed. You just chose not to see if I was referring to the correct one in my edit. Spoiler alert: I was. In fact the article I changed the link in the caption to actually includes that exact same picture, which you might have noticed if you went to the picture's file page...maybe you did, maybe you didn't, I'm guessing not or else you would've noticed the connection between the page I linked and that picture, and then you wouldn't have ended up thinking it "appeared to not be constructive".
Now usually I wouldn't have gone through the trouble to explain exactly why I chose to reinstate an edit of mine, but you see, I'm not new to Wikipedia, as that condescending "welcome to Wikipedia" introduction might have assumed. No, been here for years, just haven't edited much lately...but in this one case I decided to correct an error, just a tiny little addition, hoping someone might appreciate it. But instead what seems to be the first person to notice it took it for vandalism and deleted it. Hardly a welcome return. So, not to be rude, I know Civility is one of the five pillars. But it's hardly civil on your part to delete a legitimate edit of an experienced editor, ignore that experience by "welcoming" them to Wikipedia, and then patronizingly suggest they take their helpful-editing ways to the Sandbox...it just rubbed me the wrong way, you know? Anyway. Sorry if I've taken up your time, though you probably didn't bother to read this whole message. Frankly the only bigger waste of time than me writing it would be you reading it. But c'est la vie. Anyway, don't revert it back, please and thanks. 50.72.242.31 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I deeply apologise. Your edit was not in any sense vandalism, and my revert was completely wrong. I can only say for myself that 1) I shouldn't edit before drinking my morning coffe 2) On account of Cluebot being down there is an extra stress on vandalism fighters at the moment, and your edit slipped in between a batch of reversions of real IP-vandals. Again I am sorry, and I have retracted the warning on your talk page and will be more careful about reading the edits when I am patrolling. Hopefully happy editing in the future. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. This is my actual signed-in account by the way, I'll use it more in future for less confusion. VolatileChemical (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Naples waste management issue

Just a few seconds, I'm introducing links to appropriate references. Btw, I live in Naples...--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. That is an article in desperate need of sources regarding recent developments. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page viewing directions

Is there a standard template or method for adding a link to viewing directions for a page? Like how to turn off images in browsers for Islamic viewers of certain pages. The topic comes up so often and it seems a suitable solution. Alatari (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, as I am unfortunately not that into the whole technical side of things. I think you may get a good answer on the Help Desk (or the Village Pump). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will try that. Ty Alatari (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop ur bullying attitude or go somewhere else

what do u know of sikhism or famous sikhs,being in the habbit of reverting everything that u don't like is ur problem not mine. Also show this attitude somewhere else, not on me. What i edited was 100% right and was required for cleanup and maintaining correctness of the article.I am born and brought up in punjab and i'm here from last 25 years, Who the hell are you to decide what's wrong and what's right. Go and do some research first on sikhism and then talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmalabs (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the discussion of the subject matter instead of making personal attacks at the editors disagreeing with you. As per the bold, revert, discuss cycle the proper way to response to my reversion would have been to take your arguments to the talk page of the Sikh article. I have started a discussion there, so please respond on that page but remember to stay civil (your edit summary here is far from that). Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You have a new message at Talk:Sikh#Unexplained_deletions. --v/r - TP 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Contact on other wikipedia

Hello, Nice to see you. Here are some unfriendly guys that I don't want to stay on English wikipedia.

But I feel glad to meet you. so maybe we keep in touch on somewhere like Simple English wikipedia? Finally, thanks you for helping me these months. A lot of thanks.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

However, I just copy same conetent from this user.[5] I think this content is exactly match with china. --Fc57zj (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Remove the POV-rant in the anti-Korean sentiment article instead of copying it into another. Otherwise it constitutes pointy behaviour. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your diligent work on Your Favorite Enemies, I hereby award you with the Cleanup Barnstar! SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nazi book burning

Please read the talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning 8digits (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saint-Just Citation Credibility

I'm not sure as to your reasoning behind judging my citation as not credible. This source has been used numerous times on the page already and is one of the leading biographies on Saint-Just. Did I format the citation incorrectly, or is it some other issue with the citation? Thank you, HIS30312CaitlinI — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS30312CaitlinI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your sourcing was fine enough. It was the wording of the addition that was lacking. If I may ask what exactly does "this was largely to ensure the disregard of inconvenient Frenchman and to safeguard against a assertion of sovereignty by the people of any particular region." mean? --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Taken in context, the quote means his emphasis on representation of people rather than territory was meant to exclude those he did not want represented such as monarchists, hence "inconvenient Frenchman", and to prevent a region of the country rising up and claiming sovereignty. Think American Civil War. I appreciate your comments, but if you could offer some assistance or alternatives for clarifying my editions it would be much more helpful. I feel the information I added was important in understanding his role and influence and would like to have it stay on the page.--User:HIS30312CaitlinI —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC).

Frederick II edit

The source was the Wikipedia article on Frederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_Thygesen_Brahe you could have done that yourself instead of deleting my edit and wasting my time

173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source (And I noticed the claim of the rescue is not sourced in that article either). You will need to find a reliable WP:Secondary source for the statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy and Absolutism (European history)

I boldly merged these articles uncontroversially in line with Wp:Merge because the two articles quite obviously describe the same thing. While I do not object to the reversal of my edits in itself, I don't quite see the point unless you actually see some substantial reason not to merge them.

You also reverted my previous edit, which was a distinct and relevant removal of an intrusive piece of text, and I don't see why you should revert that without discussion, as if it were vandalism, without asking regardless of what you think of the merge. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you reverted my addition of a Merge tag to the Absolute monarchy page before I thought I might as well be bold and actually do it rather than just tagging it; it makes no sense to have one page of a proposed merger tagged and the other not tagged, and I think that this edit that you reversed was entirely constructive. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that actually seems like a good rationale for this merger which I hadn't thought of myself. I will revert myself, and sorry about the inconvenience. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Dionysodorus (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorship

This is regard to some other post (Dictatorship) in which you reverted my change by removing Saudi King from the list. It was long ago but i noticed it recently only. If Monarchy without any democratic setup is not dictatorship, what in the whole world is? Please explain your rationale soon that I could revert your change. Also there was a discussion in the talk page regarding Abdullah. You didn't care to put your reasons there!! - 122.160.141.4

It is not dictatorship because it is a monarchy, it is actually quite straightforward. And please keep articlesubject related discussions on the relevant talk page. A notification that there is a discussion there I might be interested in is sufficient, thanks. Also, I didn't bother to put my rationale there because Alchaemist already provided sufficient reasons to remove them from the list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In countries where monarchs are titular head of state, they are no way dictators. In other cases please explain how a dictator differs from monarch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.32.15 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to revert your edit in say, 10 minutes if you are not answering to my posts. 117.211.32.15 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Helloo

Helloo i readed your respond. my question if can writh this Paragraph if If i typed again in academic literature on this subject can i add it or still will had problem i will write in the talk:christianity when i finish it. Jobas (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Baruch Spinoza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Behavior of editors at the Village Pump

It's obvious that Natkabrown is a newcomer and that she wasn't aware of WP:NOTCENSORED nor WP:NLT. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE we are required to treat her with respect. Accusations to block her before any attempt to explain her the behavior guidelines is failing to take care of newcomers.

Saddhiyama asked me to elaborate how Natkabrown has been bitten. This revertion of her posting is against Talk page 'other comments' guideline. Her post was not "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism". Moreover, she was adviced to post her comment here by another editor. Moreover, there is consensus at the Administrators noticeboard that her wasn't a legal threat. See a pattern? Her behavior would be disruptive if she was an experienced Wikipedian, but as a newcomer we should inform her not to repeat those accusations, and we should evaluate her request on its own merit. A personal persecution on her is forbidden by WP:BITE. Diego (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus that it is chilling speech, which is directly related to the Wikipedia Legal Threats policy. That is a quite serious matter and attempts to placate an editor without reiterating the consequences of such a behaviour, whether it is a newcomer or not, is certainly not constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When nobody cared to explain her the consequences of her behaviour, how exactly do you expect her to understand them? We are mandated to a really utterly high standard when approaching newcomers; failing to do so is no worse that the behavior that disturbed you; even chilling speech can be made in good faith. Diego (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question was informed of these policies on Jimbo's page, but chose to ignore them and continue making assertions that Wikipedia is a "charity" and that government agencies would be informed. BITE no longer applies because the user doesn't care what we think. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Belt Fixed Link

Notice the difference between these two maps:

Great Belt Bridge class=notpageimage| Site of Great Belt Bridge in Denmark

They don't show the same location. I think we should probably go with the map that shows the bridge in the correct location. We can always add a few pins for cities, but not having the correct location is just wrong. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I am unable to read minds, I am grateful you provided an explanation for your deletion. Your explanation does make some sense and I am inclined to agree. I can't say for sure, but I guess edit summaries really does make a difference when you make bold and potentially controversial edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer

It is a wrong information. That's ambigous : it is sure that the limit of Bessin is the Vire river (the Northern part and the estuary, but the entire Vire course (and the bocage virois) was not given to Rollo. Only Bessin and Hiémois were added to the original properties of Rollo in Neustria, after the campaign lead by the king of the Franks against him in 924. According to me the reference to Vire must be suppressed. And please do not suppress sourced material about well-known linguistic facts.Nortmannus (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing sources which are widely used and accepted in Wikipedia

Your continued removal of appropriately sourced information from the Rollo article is unacceptable. The same given sources are widely used and accepted in Wikipedia elsewhere. The sources pertain to Rollo's origins, not "Kvenland".

The newly added information does not contradict the other information provided in the same segment - in contrary. If anything, the un-sourced material ought to be tackled by you. Johansdotter (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the website you are basing your claims on is not a reliable source in Wikipedia standards. If it is used as a source in other articles it should clearly be removed there as well, and remember two wrongs don't make a right. I have written my rationale for deleting it on the talk page of the article. As per the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, you should state your case there instead of resorting to edit warring. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are not my "claims". Please understand that Wikipedia cannot be made a platform for pushing a one-sided POV, by selectively using historical accounts and historians for support. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view - NPOV. It means representing fairly and proportionately - as far as possible without bias - all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

E.g.: Why in your view the Orkneyinga Saga can be used in the article to support just one piece of information (your view ?) - without even any sources sited or direct quotes offered -, while according to you the saga must not be quoted for showing what it really states in regard to the family lineage discussed ?

You need to state your case on the talk page of the article, for your continued removing of sources. Please do it source by source, instead of resorting to edit warring.

The sources referred to represent views - or are works - of distinguished experts on the field. Thus, please stop removing appropriately sourced info, as you did here, here and here. Johansdotter (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexei's obvious hoax

You know, I'm not so sure about "obvious". I have seen ridiculous things before that turned out to be entirely true when you tried to disprove them.
Our first Kyle Holland hoaxer is in Yonkers.
The second Holland hoaxer is a school in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
You personally zapped these guys at the time, December 2009.
Then Yonkers came back for a retry.
But a 3rd vandal appeared. You got distracted by him, allowing Yonkers a clean getaway.
So the "obvious" hoax text has been there for over 2 years.
The web shows a high school football player named Kyle Holland at that time in eastern Pennsylvania.
So Yonkers and New Jersey have a buddy in Pa. they know from football camp?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC) (Toronto)

I am sorry if you interpreted my reply as a snide remark at you, it was certainly not meant that way. And yes, I have had this article on my watchlist for years and hadn't noticed it either, but in these cases I have long since learned that it isn't really very constructive to point fingers at anyone but the vandal regarding this sort of thing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a little snide-ish.

And as I am more experienced than you are, there is no need for you to sound snide-ish yet again, when I was merely relating an amusing story any editor can relate to.

Right? Varlaam (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your first language is Danish.

So there has been a subtle communication issue. A matter of nuance and implication.

No problem. I liked your country when I visited it in 1987.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop Editing

the grover norquist article has the correct citation and you still removed it. please stop following my edits, what is your problem? Analog 9 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it is also questionable whether that specific piece of information is relevant in the article. I did browse your contributions list and checked up on some of your other edits, mainly because of you advocating murder on a talk page made me wonder whether you were a deliberately disruptive editor. My conclusion is that you most likely aren't, but you do seem in need of some coaching. You may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

i wasn't LITERALLY advocating murder, i was making a rhetorical point. but i understand how you could have interpreted it that way, no big deal, take care. Analog 9 (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please keep your "rhetorical points" off of Wikipedia. As you have been informed numerous times, talk pages aren't discussion forums. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Idi Amin

What's your problem? You are removing people's edit without giving a evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.10.59 (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am reinstating sourced information that was deleted based on a claim with no reliable source provided to back it up. I am sorry, but the edit summary of a Wikipedian is not a reliable source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what will be next then.

Again, Why you are trolling the pages where i have edited? You should answer "What is your problem?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already given you sufficient reasons for the reverts of your edits. I will ignore your personal attacks for now, but in the future please stick to discussing the subject and not the editors. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not even a point since you are only reverting the edits and removing the sourced materials just because they don't support your personal opinion, Take a look at guidelines, Wikipedia is not about what you are thinking of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yggdrasil

WE WANT BLOCK OF SADDHIYAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PumpkinSky Administrator in talk VSmith... Formerly User:Rlevse/user:Vanished 6551232. Currently indefinitely blocked, but not banned, by community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PumpkinSky The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vsmith (retired) "torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) BUT HIGH SCHOOL NOT University of Arizona. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vsmith#Frohliche_Weinachten_und_Gluckliches_neues_Jahr

Blockades are attacks under war law and was all the time unjustified and isn´t a reason itself for just deleting 1A contributions in WP ! We dont want and need you there as community of readers and writers ! We ask for right to fight real against you attacking+staying there ! You are blocking between communication with others our living room ! eWp international exchange base not personal meaning administrators and eWP has so no right to call istelf an encyclopedia or calling for honouring money beacause of common interest if just nonsense inside. Can you proove that people outside WP didn´t want Yggdrasil like that ? CONTENT WAS MOST JUST TRANSLATION FROM gWP AND NOTHING THERE FROM YOU ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.114.90 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand a thing of what it is you are trying to say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I`m also sorry understanding very well that you are enemy to be fucked after you atacked first ! Your serios ? unpaid unnecesary administrator friends in WP ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PumpkinSky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConradMayhew WITH MANY NAMES BUT NEVER REAL WORKING ?! AT Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents WITH BEST TABLE INSIDE LONG BEFORE LIKE 4 CHARTS+PICTURES+DELETIONS+CORRECTIONS+TEXT ADDINGS with gWP here clearly much better but not at neutron capture and missing hafnium diboride and zriconium carbide and both HfN but inside russian WP should be work of admistrators also to simply transfer the content ! NEW SELFMADE COMPARISON TABLE WITHOUT REFERENCES MUCH WORSER OLD JUST TRANSFERED ADDING and reason for blocking nonsense else all the time 10% or same level chernobyl discussion. TABLE RESCUED OUTSIDE again added inside ! ALL THE TIME INSIDE and ouside same level chernobyl or ankles radiation 2000-600mS nonsense "Much of the help and decontamination work could be done by AREVA France with boron acid, shutting down one reactor, protection suits, measurement equipment, generators, filters; by more than 1000 men with own first-hand help and information offered.[383] WITH TABLE" ALSO FROM MYSELF ADEDD Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May (Source: GRS) Measured dosis at atomic plant border area from 12. up to 17. March Position of Japanese atomic plants and spreading of tsunami Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011 BUT PLACEMENT ON SIDE OF SECTION TABLE WAS BETTER BEFORE WITH MUCH PLACE LEFT THERE ! MUCH ADDINGS FROM BEFORE MISSED AFTER DELETIONS ALSO NEW LONG SERIOS REPORT IN TALK !

I am afraid that post did not exactly help in making it more clear what it is you are trying to convey. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Touchscreen reversion

I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the lack of summary on my edit. I'm using a droidpad, so the interface gives me trouble sometimes.

The edit shouldn't have been reverted, however; it was more than just a deletion. The information had clearly been copied from a bad textbook which made the explanation very difficult to follow. I reworded it and removed the cruft. (e.g., "(think percentage)" right after it explains that the device senses voltag proportion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.102 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. The section was indeed unsourced, and I am no technical expert, so I am going to take your word for it and revert myself. I apologise for the inconvenience. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindly stop reverting factual changes to the Lego Wikipedia page.

I am beginning to think that you have a fixed and incorrect view as to the origins of the Lego brick design and are drunk at the wheel; thanks.

"I am beginning to think...", nah, you accused me of bad faith the first day we interacted which was 4 days ago. I am just looking for a reliable secondary source to your claims. The information about Kiddicraft is already in the LEGO article, but I really need a a reliable source for that specific interpretation of events that you are obviously trying insert in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lies Agreed Upon

One Major Single Source & POV

Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags "Single Source" and "POV" on Lies Agreed Upon.

Since you are involved on the above discussion, please discuss further on regarding the Tags added and the reliability of the content on Wikipedia based on the single major source.Sudar123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain this edit

Please explain why you made this revert. You have reverted to a significantly inferior version of the article. Risker (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A warning against a user

Hi. I can see that you have reverted a contribution made by user:Jamesluxley on the article Frederik's Church. I just want to warn you that this user may be an old "villain" Haabet from the Danish wikipedia, a user who is known as being false positive while inserting nonsense. Please keep an eye on him! -93.160.114.90 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned books

I made an unsourced edit to the banned books article in January 2011 which you reverted. I made the edit again with a proper source, I think. (But I forgot to explain the change, sorry!) Thanks for your vigilance. (Meiselface (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for finding a source. Don't worry about the missing edit summary, while it is a good habit to remember using it, it is mainly important regarding controversial edits. And your edit is not controversial in any way, in fact it is quite good and speaks for itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the help at "Mein Kampf." Bytwerk (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorø Abbey

Hi, do you know anything about the burial of Eric Christoffersen of Denmark? This source says he was buried in Sorø Abbey, but St. Bendt's Church list him as buried there with a picture of names to prove it. Did Eric's body orignally rested in Sorø Abbey and was moved to St. Bendt's? It seems weird that the bodies in Sorø Abbey were moved to two different churches St. Bendt's and Roskilde Cathedral? Is there anywhere on the web where one could actually find out the exact occupants of these three tombs currently, today, because a lot of moving seems to have happen since these monarchs's burial.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. You seem to have stumbled upon a mistake made centuries ago by an old historian, which have since been perpetuated in other sources who haven't bothered looking up the reference. While searching for the answer I found out that the first edition of the Danish Biographical Dictionary, which claims he was buried at Sorø, refers to the work History of Denmark, volume XXII from 1824 by acclaimed historian Peter Frederik Suhm. Luckily that volume is available at Google Books and the information needed is on page 228. He also claims that Erik was buried at Sorø and cites the Danish historian Arild Huitfeldt page 456.(the 1652 edition) for that information. Even more lucky this particular edition of Huitfeldts work is also available on Google Books, and on page 456 bottom of the first paragraph it reads: "...siden er hans Liig med Kongelig Pract ført til Ringsted/oc der begraffuen". That is "his body was taken to Ringsted and buried with royal pomp"! Huitfeldt doesn't mention anything about Sorø, so it seems that Suhm or his editor Rasmus Nyerup (after all his work was published posthumously more than 20 years after his death), has made an error, and this has been transferred to the Danish Biographical Dictionary which has probably been used as a source for the various websites and other later biographies that mentions Erik.

So to sum it up St. Bendts Church in Ringsted is the correct answer, and it seems he has never been buried at Sorø, so his bodied wasn't moved. However this is purely original research since noone seems to have noticed that error before now. But I guess since Huitfeldt is a reliable source, and combined with the burial plaque at the church in Ringsted, this is an error so obvious that it wouldn't be a problem to point it out in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. I just did a doublecheck of the sources, Suhm also refers to Scriptores, which would be Scriptores rerum danicarum, an 18th century scholarly publication of medieval Danish texts, also available on Google Books, and that one (page 523) does say he was buried at Sorø: "...& in ecclesia Halstadensi per quatuordecim dies cum solennibus exequiis fecit custodori, donec nuncii de Lubeck redeuntes cum necessaris pro ejus sepultura, & in Sielandiam deductus, sepelitur Soræ". So unfortunately it seems to be Huitfeldt who was in error and that he just inferred Ringsted from the later burial place, and that Erik indeed originally was buried at Sorø. I am afraid all this brings us no closer as to when and why he was moved to Ringsted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The moving is not that hard to believe. It is the fact that bodies from Soro Abbey were moved to two different places (Ringsted and Roskilde) while some were left behind that is weird to comprehend. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And wow you've found so many sources on Eric with so much details. Could you translate some of them and help add to and expand the article for Eric Christoffersen of Denmark?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will see what I can do regarding adding some information to the article. Regarding the moving of the bodies I must admit that medieval history is not my speciality (I am more into early modern history), so I do find the concept somewhat strange, and of course am also completely baffled regarding how they made their choices about which bodies to move where. And I am sorry but it seems I am unable to help you regarding that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Location of death

I asked this on humanities ref. desk.

Is the "slaget på Loheden (1331)" ([6]) and a "battle at Danevirke" in Eric Christoffersen of Denmark's article the same event? This source says "Paa Flugten efter Kampen ved Slesvig 30. Nov. 1331 styrtede E. med Hesten ved Danevirke, og Faldet forvoldte, at han kort efter døde i Kiel (1332)." or "On the flight after the battle of Schleswig 30th November 1331 E. crashed with the horse at Dannevirke and fall injury that he soon after died in Kiel (1332)." But if Danevirke is only the site of his accident and not the battle why does his fahter's article place his defeat in 1331 at Danevirke. We got Loheden, Schleswig and Danevirke now, and I still have no idea where Loheden is. Do you have any idea what battle and where it was?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered "Lohheide bei Schleswig" (reading Danish placenames with a German twist). In a book in German on "Schleswig Holstein - Das Land und seine Geschichte" (a coffee table book by Eckardt Opitz on the history and area of Schleswig Holstein)(page 58) 1261 kam es auf der Loheide bei Schleswig zu einer weiteren Schlacht (In 1261 there was another battle on the Lohheide near Schleswig). Not 1331 obviously, but that area - and Dannevirke is also close by - was full of battles then. Not really my period! I cannot find this Lohheide on Googlemaps Viking1808 (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

but further google searching for Lohheide bei Schleswig comes up with a website which reads "Am Deckerkruge bei Schuby, in der Nähe der Lohheide bei Schleswig, ist ein kleiner Hügel, den man Dronningshoi nennt" The Hotel Deckerkrug is marked (if you google it) between Schuby and the E45 motorway, almost on the railway, in Schuby close to Dannewerke and Schleswig town. So, if you accept that Lohheide is the same as Loheden you have your battle site. Viking1808 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shah

You are too fast for me, haha I had just finished explaining my point and why i did what i did in Talk. Gidicats (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Should i re-do what i did or is the decision to keep the bias comment final?'Gidicats (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Saddhiyama. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Aryan

Dear Saddhiyama

first a big thank you.

You seem to have put knowledgable sources on here. I will take a look at some of them if I may and if in doubt about anything will get back.

But please feel free to contact me at your own discretion.

P.s.: Maybe one should also have a look at society/ caste structure? but more of that to be seen I hope.

Thank you.

J. Jaman

I am afraid I may have explained myself insufficiently then. My reversion was not on account of anything related to sources. Your edits may very well have been factually correct, I am not capable of judging that, as I must admit a lack of knowledge regarding Indian and Vedic culture and history. My objection was based on you changing perfectly working wikilinks into redlinks, something which we try to avoid as per the Manual of Style. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok. I was not aware of that, sorry.

Tack för din hjälp :)

Forced conversion

I don't see what the problem is, if you have any faults with regards to my editing then message me on specific issues, abusing your power as a mod is hardly the way forward for diplomacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.139.119 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be patient. I am sure it will be much clearer to you tomorrow after I file my SPI-report. I am sorry I can't help you at the moment, but it is just too late in the evening for me to trust myself to get all the details straight. See you tomorrow. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What made you delete state atheism information it was all refernced and resourced and all specific to the topic in hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.98.248 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Content forking. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Deism

Ok, I moved the source to the subject, it should be good, please help. the information is good. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Advertising

Dear Saddhiyama, I wrote an article on Advertising ‘Sheltered Outdoor Advertising’ , as I thought, and still think, that it would contribute to Wikipedia and I see the picture, which I uploaded, as a good example for the article. There is no intention to advertise, so I would be happy to change whatever I can.. But just today I finally finished struggling with Wiki regarding the copyrights for this photo and got it finally uploaded again with the copyrights sorted out… I’m becoming a bit desperate.. Would you please be kind to tell me what should I change in the photo so that it fits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikimedia Commons has a whole category named Category:Outdoor advertising full of images with free licenses, which are much more informational and where you don't have to paste the name of some organisation in bold letters as part of a copyright notice. There is simply no need to have an unfree image in that article, and it smacks of promotion in itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Saddhiyama, I would have been more than happy to correct the bold letters. Again, it is not in my intention to advertise the company and bold letter were simply my oversight. I always had the impression that Wikipedia is dealt in a rather Democratic way, where I can upload a picture of my choice and not be dismissed with just ‘pick one of these’. I understand that, in your opinion, there are better examples, but would you please be kind to allow my opinion and taste to be expressed, especially if I do all in my efforts not to violate Wiki rules. I would kindle ask you to let me know what changes yhould I make in order for you to restore my photo. Best regards Tina Pratt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Saddhiyama, As I did not receive an answer from you for almost 3 weeks, I took the liberty of uploading my photo again, with all official names excluded (company, name of the festival..) I hope you will understand and respect my opinion that photo is a perfect example for the text. I will centennially gladly correct whatever needs to be corrected in order for the photo not to break any of the Wiki rules. With kind regards Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pleeeease an answerrrr.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of reply, my Wikipedia presence has been very lacking these last couple of weeks as I have unfortunately come down with the flu, so I have deferred any personal engagements until I got a bit more clearheaded. I have looked at your upload and it looks fine, that is as fine as any of the other uploads of advertisements to Wikimedia Commons, so I can't complain. Thank you for your work here, it is a sad fact the special branch of advertisement is not exactly frequented by a lot of serious voluntary editors, but I really appreciate your earnestness. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

United Nations

I have created a sub section here on "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure"; Please review.Sudar123 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let Aleister live! Long live Wikipedia!

Hello, Saddhiyama.

Thank you for responding. I wasn't logged in from this shared home computer, but I am now. (Same IP address.)

I believe that a mistake was made, and is continuing to be made. I would ask, what would the appropriate link be for Aleister Crowley? The truth is, one is linking an on-line encyclopedia to a more objective, more thorough encyclopedia -- when the subject is the man, A.C., at least. Similarly, the Wikipedia often references, quotes or incorporates whole paragraphs and sections from other specialized encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, the Catholic,or the Judaica.

I hope we can agree that the subject of the person Aleister Crowley will be of interest to users of Wikipedia, and that it would be a shame to leave his name un-linked. I think the question between us is whether the internal Wikipedia link best serves the users, or whether the external link is more accurate. The question is one of neutral, or neutral-ish, POV. Some subjects inspire strong passions and are difficult to be neutral about. Climate change and "creationism" are two examples where "teach the controversy" is inadequate . . .

Well. I was remembering some earlier incarnation of Wikipedia's A.C. article. Without reading the Talk page, but having just re-read the current article, I am glad to change my position and advocate linking A.C.'s name to Wikipedia's own A.C. article. I hope you don't mind if I go back and do so, at least for R.A.W.

Thank you for helping me come to this conclusion.

<{:)}> BaalShemRa (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Talk:Book

This is Chipperdude15. The US and Saudi Arabia did provide naval support for Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. That is why I put the US and Saudi Arabia in the infobox of the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. For proof, please read Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Thanks. (talk) 11:07, September 14 2013

Apologies for restoring your deletion . Brain not in gear and I saw it as Book not Talk:Book. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to me sometimes as well, especially when I engange in recent changes patrolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)