User talk:Deepakshenoy
My name is Deepak Shenoy, and I'm very new to Wikipedia. But do leave your comments, and I'll get back to you.
India related links
[edit]Welcome!
Hello Deepakshenoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 Links for Wikipedians interested in India-related content | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a collection of links to WikiProject pages and Category pages relevant to India-related content | |||||||||||||||
| WP:India | |||||||||||||||
| WikiProjects |
| ||||||||||||||
| Newcomers |
| ||||||||||||||
--Pamri • Talk 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding IIPM Controversy article and other edits
[edit]Many of the sources for the edits cited on the article are at blogsites maintained by web users. Such sources cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, Citing sources and Neutral Point of View carefully. Clean up the article if you can. You also removed a whole paragraph on Narendra Modi without citing reasons as to why on the talk page. In case you make major changes in the articles you should mention the reasons behind the changes on the talk page. Maintaining a Neutral Point of View is an essential and mandatory requirement on Wikipedia. Regards. --Andy123(talk) 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Anirudh, the controversy is half about the blogs. You'll notice that even the mainstream media mention the blogs. The talk archives of the IIPM page discuss the policy issue. Largely, in my view, the blogs are important as sources, as even the mainstream media has acknowledged in the linked articles. Contentious views still prevail on Varna's and Thalassa's blogs: I think you're right here and will remove them.
- Note here that Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis will continue to be referred - they're quotable as primary sources because we are referring to them (and not using their blogs as secondary sources)
- The Controversy article in itself is NPOV, or should be. I'll try and improve it as we go along. Remember that Wikipedia's policies are "suggestions", not enforced policy - so we can override parts of them if it makes sense to the overall goal of Wikipedia.
- What's this Narendra Modi business you refer to? I had no idea that page existed, and that's not even my IP. You probably mean someone else. Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am extremely sorry about the other warning. I was under stress, as I was dealing with multiple vandalisms, that day. About the IIPM matter, I am still looking into the article. Thank you for replying and your contributions to Wikipedia. I'd suggest that you sign your article by leaving ~~~~ tildes on talk pages. Cheers and thank you! --Andy123(talk) 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The other sources are very reliable, but I am still concerned about the neutrality of the article. Hope you can help us out. Cheers! --Andy123(talk) 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to help with the NPOV issue but in my view the article is already NPOV. There may be some minor cleanup points, but if you get into the page's discussion we may be able to work something out together. Oh and sorry about forgetting to sign off! Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Although, I must tell you that blogs are advisably not used as sources for information because they are primary sources and personal biases are present in them. Anyone with an account can publish his/her thoughts over the internet. We need solid sources, which can only be retrieved from websites of repute. Kindly review Wikipedia's policy on Reliable sources. Click here. Regards, --Andy123(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- In this case blogs are only used as primary sources. The blogs in question are PART of the controversy (Rashmi got derogatory remarks on her blog - preserved today too - and Gaurav's blog entries created a ruckus at IBM) These are the subjects of the businessworld articles, and Businessworld is a reputed magazine; I put only Rashmi's and Gaurav's blogs in, since they are primary sources here (the blogs are the subject, not their content).Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, the link you've provided explicitly allow the use of blogs as primary sources about themselves. That makes sense. For example, if the only source for the IIPM's alleged legal notice to Gaurav was Gaurav's blog, we can write "Gaurav Sabnis wrote on his blog that he received a legal notice from IIPM", but not "Gaurav Sabnis received a notice from IIPM". — Ravikiran 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Appreciation
[edit]
|
Barnstar | |
| For watching the IIPM article and working hard in keeping it NPOV. I went through the talk page discussions. You have been outstanding. Keep up the good work. I am amazed the controversy section survived all this time. :) You and Ravikiran deserve kudos for that. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
IIPM article
[edit]Hi Deepak,
I followed your blog and reached here. If you have any troubles with the IIPM article to maintain a neutral point of view, please contact me. A better suggestion would be to post the request at the Indian Notice Board, where at least 20 Indian administrators and many more Wikipedians keep a watch. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- A clarification of sorts. The Indian Noticeboard is for all Indian Wikipedians, and not just administrators. I specifically mentioned the admins so as to reassure you that you will get good and neutral response if you post a message there. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Try avoid falling into the 3RR trap. If Ambuj is not around and anon editors attack the page, get help from other admins at WP:ANI or WP:AIV or make a semi-protection request at WP:RFPP. Tintin (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A copy of my message to Ganesh, Nishkid
[edit]Deepak, I've left the following messages for Ganesh and Nishkid. Thought I'll copy that to you, before I file a formal complaint. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ganesh for the message to Nishkid. You perhaps conveniently forget that I was the one reverting back to "your" versions (that is Deepak Shenoy's versions) when the vandals starting attacking. I have also read the issue of your personal award to Deepak Shenoy and your personal affiliations with supporting the IIPM Controversy section. I quote from the person whom you gave the barnstar award for adhering to NPOV and for keeping the IIPM controversy alive. When I told Deepak Shenoy that people should not be reverting illogically, guess what he told me... The following is quoted from the trancripts of Deepak Shenoy's discussions with me when he attempted to steamroll me into consenting by showing off and hrowing off your admin powers on me: Mrinal, Reverting is not a right only to existing editors of an article, it can be exercised by anyone. Let's all work on the assumption that we are mature people, and that anyone who wants to edit or change can do so. Do not put arbitrary restrictions - I don't even know if you are Mrinal or you are someone pretending to be Mrinal because you do not login here. Ganesh is a Wikipedia admin, by the way. Deepakshenoy 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Ganesh, if you are an administrator, who is also editing pages at IIPM, I do not believe that you should allow users like Deepak Shenoy to show off his personal closeness to you and to literally frighten other editors into acceptance. Kindly give the correct view to Nishkid. I'll be highly grateful if you also advise me on whether I'm wrong in assuming what I have assumed. Because if I'm right, I'll approach the correct forum to file a complaint. And if I'm wrong in my understanding, then I should be told so and I'll apologise. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear HighBc, I noticed you had commented recently on a wiki site of IIPM. I wished to find out from you how to complain against a wiki administrator who, I have reasons and proof to believe, is misusing his powers to support one particular editor. If you can kindly show me the appropriate forum, I'll lodge a complaint against the administrator. I searched wiki and have not been able to find a link for the same. You could perhaps also go to the discussions page on the IIPM site to see my viewpoints regarding this. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- The admin's talk page is the best place to deal with this. Failing that you can post at WP:AN/I, however please have all of your evidence ready when you post there, and be sure you have already attempted to resolve this matter directly. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Administrative conflict of interest in the case of Ganesh, an administrator and an editor on this site
[edit]I'm copying part of my message to Ganesh that I've left at the IIPM talk page. This is just for your information.
- Thanks Ganesh. The reason I focused on fixing your spelling and grammar, was because I took offence to being told that I was accusing "established editors and administrators". Neither is Deepak any more "established" than a normal Wikipedia dabbler; nor are you, and more so in matters of English; and 'English', mind it, which forms the basis of Wikipedia. As Wikipedia confirms, we're not striving for perfection. Ergo, I do not expect your English to be perfect; and it is not, you make unbelievable subject-object, composition, modifying verb et al errors (and not just once, your statements do have many of those). It proves to me that to become an administator, one needs to be focused on following ethical guidelines of editing, and not necessarily on getting one's English appropriately conjectured. I find a clear conflict of interest in your continuing editing on this page, at the same time holding administrative responsibilities, at the same time awarding another editor for ensuring that he has kept controversial details alive on the page. I do not mind controversial details being discussed by editors. But I object to those being discussed by administrators with extra powers; even if they might not finally use their extra power openly. But you did use your powers indirectly. For information, instead of directing Deepak Shenoy to (file a request to) block the page, you chose yourself to write to Nishkid. And when you did message Nishkid to block the page, you did not message as an editor (which you could have). You deliberately told him you were an administrator (thus confirming your status) and requested him twice to block the page, which he, after a couple of days, did. His response must have been more positive because you are an administrator. Therefore, I put in a formal statement out here to request you to kindly not continue editing on this page or using your administrative capacities on this page. Ganesh, there is a clear and evident conflict of interest in your actions. If you agree, I shall not lodge a formal complaint. If you do wish to continue editing, I shall lodge a formal complaint and also let everybody in the Wikipedia community know such a conflict exists blatantly. I'll await your resonse. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
IIPM
[edit]Hi Deepak. I have posted an entry on the IIPM talk page proposing an indefinite full protect. Please weigh in over there. If we get a consensus among all editors, we can then approach admins with a request to do the same. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination of Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Deepakshenoy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)