User talk:Atreyeemaiti
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Atreyeemaiti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty
[edit]Please add an wp:edit request to Talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty. Use the wp:template {{FPER}} (fully protected edit request) which should get an admin's attention. I've got to go to bed. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done! Thank you Jim1138
Please format / indent your talk
[edit]It helps one follow conversational threads. See help:talk pages Thanks - Jim1138 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks Jim1138
Sourcing and citations
[edit]Just a bit of follow-up & elaboration: Per wp:verifiability, any significant content must wp:cite a wp:reliable source (RS). See help:referencing for beginners. Note that blogs, wikis (including this Wikipedia) are generally (but not always) not considered RS. Content should be under editorial oversight. wp:primary sources may be self-serving and censor content they wish to not be seen. Content should be warts and all. If Anukulchandra Chakravarty is cited in numerous RS that he was a "Self proclaimed Godman", then that probably should be in the article. Not saying he was, but that should be a Wikipedia editor's impartial position. See quote below taken from wp:Purpose which is a good read. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think what I and probably some other editors too are saying is that the "self proclaimed godman" part is something that one of the editors is himself concluding whereas the reference does not seem to indicate the same. But I understand what you mean principle-wise. Thank you.
| “ | Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.—Larry Sanger[1] | ” |
References
- ^ Sanger, Larry (1 November 2001), Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia, archived from the original on 2007-12-11
Not voting
[edit]BTW: wp:consensus is not achieved by vote. A hundred people might say "it should be X" and one say "it should be Y because of such-and-such a policy". Consensus would then be for the latter as it was to policy and not because "I like it that way". Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. I get that. But as long as the what the X version is also as per wiki policies I am guessing its fine correct? Atreyeemaiti (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- The point being, in such discussions, there is often a lot of "pro" votes that are contrary to policy. The final reviewer may discard policy-ignorant "votes". A bit off topic here, but pertinent points: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion The admin may not consider an unsupported point unless it is obvious. Hopefully, I didn't make this more confusing! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, you did not make it more confusing - I think I understand what you mean. Appreciate the inputs and help. Thank you! Cheers Atreyeemaiti (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The point being, in such discussions, there is often a lot of "pro" votes that are contrary to policy. The final reviewer may discard policy-ignorant "votes". A bit off topic here, but pertinent points: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion The admin may not consider an unsupported point unless it is obvious. Hopefully, I didn't make this more confusing! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
NPOV
[edit]I left a comment on talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty#Protected edit request on 21 October 2018 I am not sure if either "side" is attempting to edit the article to wp:NPOV. I'm no longer going to comment/work on this. Best of luck. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- No problem Jim1138, yes it seems to need some strong references either way. Let us see how this goes. Thank you for all the help. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)