User talk:E. Ripley/archive6

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Talk page archive: 1-2-3-4-5

PLEASE ADD NEW COMMENTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.

Comment to Sydney on Tree shaping talk

Ripley, I think if you are going to advise one of the wrong party you should share your advice to the other in the wrong as well. Griseum is routinely snide to other editors. Griseum is an experienced editor and should know better. Please next time share the advice around. Blackash have a chat 15:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I feel that Griseum was being snide (and untruthful to boot) in his comment about Sydney's editing quote "but poor marks to whoever was so concerned about “improving” this article that they turned the introductory sentence into grammatical non-sense.", from the same section where you commented. To some else I would normally have said don't bite the newbes. But Griseum has issues already with me and I didn't want to inflame the situation. Blackash have a chat 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that commenting now would not be of any use or may even be detrimental. I was making my comment more as a suggestion for future occasions. When you may want to give advice, that it would be a good idea to check who the editor in question is replying to, and maybe clearly include both sides about playing nice together. Blackash have a chat 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blackash have a chat 16:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

Hi, I just realized this template existed. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>		The Third Opinion Award
		Our Lady of Mount Carmel . History2007 History2007 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC) — ~~~~[reply]

Wikiquette alerts is destructive

That you would go along with attempts to turn it back onto me is shameful. Look again at the volley of invective I received. I could have been more diplomatic at the start, but putting that on an equal footing with the abuse hurled at me is to undermine the whole process.

I will seek to communicate to editors how destructive and dysfunctional Wikiquette alerts is. I mean, no one stopped the discussion being side-lined into style matters, which was a ploy to shift the focus from that guy's abuse. Wikiquette alerts has just sent out a message to editors that it's fine, really, to attack others, because when they complain, the complainant gets mud on their face too. There really is NO protection, then, against behaviour like this:

"you are an idiot"
"world's first hyphentard" (edit-summary)
"pathetic"
"I certainly do not need to be civil"
"sick", "not normal", "damn peculiar".
"fetish"

Instead, I am made to look equally uncivil. Look at what I wrote. Is it on a par? Then look at your summary. I am disgusted, and will make this known in a campaign against the legitimacy of that process. It should not masquerade as a mechanism for protection against continuing abuse and rudenes. Tony (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it, do you. It utterly fails to address the problem behaviour, but worse, sends a message that that kind of abuse is acceptable. I will work to discredit the WQ alerts process. I've seen others do so; I will join them, with good reason now. I suggest you leave it rather than encourage abusive behaviour. Tony (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I'm at it, "Surturz and Tony1 both admonished to be polite and avoid move-warring over anything, much less a MOS issue"—You accuse me of move-warring. I moved nothing. Neither did he, I think (it was a redirect). You might get your facts right before you make accusations such as that. It's disgusting. Tony (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much whether I was offended as whether the process ends up endorsing abusive behaviour. Clearly, when the complainant is smeared in your summary on an equal footing with the abuser, there is something wrong. And what did you mean about MoS in your summary? It's hard to comprehend the meaning; but it brings up the fact that no one at WQA seems to discourage the trick of reframing the issue onto content to remove the focus from the abusive behaviour. WQA is not about content or debate; it's about abuse and rudeness. Seriously, I mean, this guy called me "an idiot", "pathetic", "sick", "[not] normal", "damn peculiar", "Quite frankly, fuck that", "pissfart", "ridiculous hyphen fetish", and says "I certainly do not need to be civil ...". You've just encouraged him to keep doing that to other users, in your summary. It is shameful, and demonstrates that WQA is destructive and dysfunctional. You ought to stop servicing it and put your skills into improving the mediation and related processes; it is dangerous to pretend that WQA serves the purposes it purports to. Tony (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA doesn't contemplate any binding solutions, so I'm not sure what you ever would have expected of it beyond having editors review a situation and comment on it, which is exactly what was done. It's an informal and non-binding noticeboard as I'm sure you know. My personal comments, which were largely quite supportive of you, stand; Ncmvocalist is the one who suggested that there was move-warring going on over the MOS, and who had harsher words for you -- again, not to beat a dead horse -- but which I properly summarized in the closure notice. Your issue on that score is with him; if you're confused about his comments about move-warring, you need to ask him to clarify. I wouldn't have an issue with reopening the report so that you can answer him there or perhaps ask for some clarification, if you like.

I really understand your frustration with the lack of effective means of making people behave here, and how the high-powered lasers can sometimes (often?) be focused back upon a truly aggrieved party, but that's a problem all over Wikipedia, not just at WQA. I don't mean this to read as preachy but that's among the reasons why it's so very important to choose your words carefully, and don't ever let yourself be baited into making any kind of heated comments -- because they're just the sorts of things that real problem users can use to deflect conversation away from them and onto you, and obfuscate real problems in the process. But again, a lasting solution to continuing behavior by a real problem user is far beyond the mandate of WQA, which I personally see as a place for frustrated people to seek refuge, to have their problems examined and feelings validated where proper, and to be directed to the next place to go to get pernicious issues solved. WQA alone can't fix pernicious or ongoing problems, but I have seen it help defuse situations; in fact there's an example currently on the page. It is arguably less useful for experienced editors who already understand what dispute resolution options are open to them and how to use them, but I think it can be highly useful for less experienced editors and those who find themselves in rude interactions with new users who may not understand how serious the civility policy really is, and who need some backup. — e. ripley\^talk 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's talking about "binding"? "I think it can be highly useful for less experienced editors and those who find themselves in rude interactions with new users who may not understand how serious the civility policy really is, and who need some backup"—You have just shown that it is utterly useless—indeed worse than that. If you close a section, the onus is on you, not on me, to get your facts right. The instructions at the top of WQA say "It is an informal non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors." That is what I did, and I do not expect to be smeared by you as a result. That you would give any weight to the musings of ncmvocalist, who bears a grudge against me and a number of other editors for criticising his biased reportage of ArbCom's business at The Signpost, is an indictment on the WQA process: he is the one who launched a savage attack on me only three weeks ago, about which I took no action. You seem to be avoiding responsibility for getting your facts right and providing a balanced summation. The opposite has occurred. Please do not write such summaries if you are unwilling to apply yourself to the task. That means properly checking who is making malicious drive-by comments. It is seriously counterproductive, and the process needs to be deleted. Your barnstar for contributions to Third Opinion suggests skill and dedication to such matters; but if this is the best you can do, you should do other things on WP. Tony (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither the authority nor the mandate to pass such a judgment, particularly one that doesn't reflect the balance of opinion, the page being a spot for people to express their opinions (mine's no better than another's). I can't possibly know who you've had difficult interactions with in the past, and the suggestion that I somehow should have known that Ncmvocalist has a grudge against you from your report at WQA is unreasonable (you should have mentioned your past interactions at the report page to give context to Ncmvocalist's views -- that no doubt would have warranted further discussion at the very least).

I have tried to be thoughtful and reasonable in answering your concerns and the offer to reopen the report stands (the context about your past interactions with Ncmvocalist could be added if nothing else). Since you've erased the thread from your talk page I'm leaving this here in the hopes that you might see it. I disagree with your assessment of my contributions here, but then I'm sure you haven't evaluated them all (perhaps you were unwilling to apply yourself to the task?). In any case I harbor no hard feelings despite the tenor of your comments and wish you the best. — e. ripley\^talk 15:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here. E. Ripley, much of your approach to these comments by Tony has been admirable. If there was anything I would have criticised or really wanted to point out, it would be the actual closure line. Where an user isn't ready to accept that a dispute is resolved, it ought to be marked as stuck and they should be referred to the venues where they would escalate (though, with positive thinking, hopefully they won't and will resolve it later). So to that extent, it probably should have been changed to stuck. My other point would be on the summary itself; it wasn't an admonishment as much as it was counselling the parties to change their approach to the dispute. Hope that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts, I appreciate them. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I would be happy to reopen the report, which would basically strike the resolved line completely; it was certainly never my intention to misrepresent anyone's views or to inflame someone who was already under duress. Let me see what I can do to calm things down, and thank you again. — e. ripley\^talk 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime; you're very welcome. I've added a stuck tag with what I'd have written for this dispute - please let me know what you think of it in terms of accuracy; I hope it covers your comment too as well as the other responses. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But now I see you're communing with vocalist—passing each other bouquets. You misunderstand the job you've taken on: it cannot be done without judging the status of scuttle-butt that fly-by editors with an axe to grind might insert. Do you understand that you have now made things much worse at The Signpost? Not better: WORSE. You need to ditch that dangerous excuse for dealing with abuse and rudeness, and realise that you can, and probably do, create harm by working superficially. I am certainly wasting no more time here or on your Wetiquette page. You can deal with that, knowing the harm you've done on more than one count. So I'll leave you two to pally up more. Tony (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. I think I've responded fully and appropriately and don't have much else to say. — e. ripley\^talk 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some help??

Hi I was wondering if you can help me giving me some tips about wikiprojects. I´m in a business english project but I´m new in wikipedia and I would like to work in diferent kind of themes like business and economics(would be helpful because I´m studing that)and why not? in some music themes too, well I think thats all by the moment.thank you for your time and I will wait for your response, good bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco hinojosa (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

3O talk page question

Just wanted to let you know that I have asked a question on the 3O talk page concerning what I thought was a great way to initiate a response you made to a 3O request. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387538673 -- this is the latest submitted by me. and the earlier one which you havent gone through is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387349101.There are no references of blogs put by me in the latter but may be some one else had put and i may have falied to see it.I also requested many people to see the article and let me know which reference they want it changed.

please go through this version where only reliable sources ie. interviews of Amitabh Bachchan,Rajesh Khanna himself alone have been put.in addition news articles from newspapers have been put.angelfire or any blogs is certainly not present in the artcile submitted by me.

first of all active banana has been deleting all the facts.Even in the present article as published by activebanana is nothing but my version only with few edits.for past few days he had been deleting the article just like that.

may i know what is the reason for deleting following facts for which yes i did provided references?

1 Chetan Anand, G.P. Sippy, Shakti Samanta and B. R. Chopra were the judges in the contest 2 the winning prize Khanna received was acting as the leading man in the film produced by each of the judges. 3 The Kishore Kumar-Rajesh Khanna combination worked miracles and it was almost impossible to see them as separate identities. 4 given screen name that means, 'king of kings 5 moreover i have not inserted any images in my version of this one.

actually the present article submitted by activebanana is much better than what he was posting earlier ..i mean copy pasting earlier..Atleast now he has managed to validate the sources.Infact u can see his talk page ... I did tell him many times that instead of deleting the article contribute fruitfully to the article and provide new references in place of the so called.

now again he has checked my references honestly (this time around) and so has accepted what i have written. iam sure this he has done out of fear.

u can ur self see that what i had submitted was facts alone.

this is in response to ur comment Hebrides 's talk page. Shrik88music (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i said these things coz u mentioned and used words like "" Shrik88music's edit needs a lot of work and he would do well to try to refine it,"".activebanana has done nothing but just wants to show he has brought the references by himself tats all.ego problem i guess. no iam not against him since ages or sumthing...just see his user page ...many are requesting him to stop editing pages or saying he b blocked.

please keep seeing rajesh khanna article and see whether all the information as is presently seen remains and just out of ego he doesnt edit again and delete FACTS.i will be in touch with u ,infact i have been asking -Moonriddengirl since days that whom can she refer me to where i can show what problem iam facing .

i repeat activebanan has childish behaviour and engages in editwar and is editing FATS unecessarily and i had always provided relaible sources only.example herbrides was forced to send a msg advising me as if iam the one who is starting edit war. Shrik88music (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the realm of odd coincidence

Hi. :) I have, with Shrik88music's permission, found somebody who may be willing to mentor him (see here). I'm looking for back-up mentorship and was flipping through the list of adopters, where your listing jumped out. I think he needs help from a generalist rather than a vandal fighter or niche editor. I didn't realize you had already encountered him. :D I believe he is well meaning, though clearly he needs a lot of help. Would you be willing to assist there, or should I move down my list? I'll check here for reply. Thanks in any case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) I don't usually play adopter-adoptee matchmaker in this way, but I'm motivated here because he's stopped by my page on multiple occasions to ask for help, and I just have not had time to give him the attention he needs. :/ We've got so many copyright cleanup projects going on at the moment that I can't even come close to keeping up. Since I feel a bit guilty at encouraging him to seek adoption rather than giving him a hand myself, I figured the least I could do once he declared himself ready was to try to get him through that process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

" I can see how and why interacting with Shrik88music may be frustrating, as he has a lot to learn about Wikipedia. "

surprised about such comments about me! here i am contributing to that article fruitfully by giving all necessary references and my image is being tarnised before a contributor who is just reverting FACTS about khanna! he would be now get encouraged to keep doing things he is not supposed to!Shrik88music (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see u can say i need improvement but as far as khanna article is concerned i have sufficient knowledge! u shud hve not made that stament in that manner atleast before that man! he doesnt add any thing useful but only deletes facts! iam not offended but i feel u shud not encourage him by saying i need improvement! Shrik88music (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please go through this article http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=7148 this link gives more clarity about khanna's affair with the 3 different women! why dont you edit the article by putting this information in your words!Shrik88music (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387797283 i have changed the words u askd me to change. but what is this banana doing ...he says poorly refernced and may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards... Shrik88music (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ][reply]

he had claimed that there are ceratin dead links -- i have provided him with the refernces he asked for in the talk page. please ask hime to now edit the page and make the artcile's info look respectable. many places he claimed that the artciles are dead and also asked for some more refernces. so i have done what he has asked for and now its time for him to rectify the errors!!Shrik88music (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrik88music‎ mentorship

Thank you for mentoring, I know that I dont have the patience. But I will try to work with rather than just stating the policies. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

213.97.61.24?

I noticed this edit[1]. Is someone else editing your comments, or did you forget to log on? BitterGrey (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former I'm afraid; see [2] (also replied on your talk). — e. ripley\^talk 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Thanks for the heads up. I'd apologise if I could work out what I was apologising for, but nothing I said was directed at Machine Elf in any way.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of changes not yet done

hello AB has not edited the article with help of the refernces i provided him. he asked citations and refernces for many items.i have done my duty but he isnt now reverting his article or adding informations. what kind of contribution is this? again now i would have to make the artcile now. he only knows to delete it seems. first i thought okay let him find errors and i will provide him whatever he needs. today i did the same thing - whatever issues he had for that i given him all the replies. but he still has not made needed changes as fast as he would have deleted or removed facts !!!! why u r not saying anything? shall i make my version now?Shrik88music (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read the sections RE: Early life , 2) Excessive number of dead links - impossible to verify content under WP:BLP 3) All india contest in Rajesh Khanna duscussion section.

my comments to him -- first of all i have proved ur claims as wrong ie. they are dead links and that citation needed. whatever reference i have given that u need to incorporate. as u are disrespecting the actor by putting such comments.there are many readers who may read the artcile which is at present looking dirty with such comments.i have provided all the refernces u asked for. why are u now finding it difficult in putting together all the information i gave?its very easy to remove sentences but difficult to provide facts.u have provided comments in early life and adult life section and that needs to be removed first.this is matter of principle i mean basic ethics!!Shrik88music (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of the talk page. I have made a suggestion there and hope that you avail yourself of it. — e. ripley\^talk 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have nothing against u as ur definitely being helpful. but my question y no action is being taken against him. u say being a mentor u cant directly edit the artcile. does honesty have no place? when so many refernces have been provided to him which he asked for, using them he could hve improved the article but he chooses to keep quiet when he was given reply in form of all refernces. also i would like to clarify iam not a fantic fan or something. infact i find him to be anti khanna or from his talk page i find many find him being a destroyer of factsShrik88music (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, my role here is to help you learn Wikipedia's policies and how they are properly applied. My role is not to adjudicate a content dispute between the two of you. That is why I am not editing the article myself, though I could if I wanted to. I have chosen not to because my interest is in helping you learn Wikipedia's policies.

Once again, please don't make comments about other contributors like that. One of Wikipedia's policies is to assume good faith. That means we should assume that other Wikipedia editors are here to make a good encyclopedia, unless we have some reason to believe the contrary. You are both engaged in a good-faith content dispute.

Just because you are engaged in a content dispute does not mean that AB is "anti-khanna" and he certainly has not been "destroying facts." What kind of action would you have "taken against him?" You are simply disagreeing about the structure and content of the article. That happens on Wikipedia every day, and is not against the rules. We all have our opinions, and having differing opinions is not against the rules. — e. ripley\^talk 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have pro actively replied to this question already. see this link http://www.screenindia.com/news/The-original-superstar/327356/ -- samanta says he, sippy were judges ..atleast their names must be mentioned for now. plus what about other informations which he was not incorporating --- i directly made the changes and put them in order.also there is something called as information which is not available online. In India online sources began obly from year 2000. when already sippy and samanta names r available then i need to provide only links for fact that datta, bimal roy were also in panel right? then if that minutely , u need refrence then leave those names but show Samanta and G.P.Sippy's name. many information is not available inline as khanna was active from 1966-1991 and computer started to be used in India extensively only from 2000.Shrik88music (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best song ever!

Day-o is the best song ever! and the version he did on the Muppet Show is amazing. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than all india contest what about others which he hasnt incorporated??? when will they be???

There were no dead links found by me .just check the following links by yourself 1)one change in the article mentioned by you - Anju Mahendroo was a FASHION designer. 2) http://chatinterviews.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1258826.cms -- this interview is itself enough for three lines lines "Khanna attended St. Sebastian’s Goan High School in Girgaum, along with his friend Ravi Kapoor, who later took the stage name of Jeetendra.Their mothers were both keertan pals." and "When Jeetendra went for his first film audition it was Khanna, who tutored him." 3)http://www.rediff.com/%0Amovies/2002/sep/13dinesh.htm - reference for "Later Khanna married Dimple Kapadia in 1973 and has two daughters from the marriage." 4) http://movies.ndtv.com/PhotoDetail.aspx?Page=5&ID=6523 - ndtv is news channel of India similar to bbc - The couple separated in 1984, as his schedule kept him away much of the time and Dimple became interested in pursuing an acting career. 5) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Rajesh-Dimple-Complicated/articleshow/6541166.cms for "Following a few years of separation, the relationship between Kapadia and Khanna blossomed and remained that of close friends." 6)http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/slideshows/80s/tinamunim.htm - it mentions tina munim was romantically involved with khanna and reason for sepeartion was that she decided to leave film industry in 1987 to pursue higher studies abroad. ie for " In the eighties Tina Munim was romantically invloved with Khanna till the time she decided to leave the industry" 7)http://www.expressindia.com/news/election/fullestory.php?type=ei&content_id=30722 for "heir elder daughter Twinkle Khanna, an interior decorator and also a former Hindi film actress, is married to actor Akshay Kumar."

8)just go through this article- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=388144175 calmly.

9)there can b instances of unreferenced sentence too coz what if its not available online?may be after ceratin years it may be available online easily.Y no take into consideration that computer was introduced extensively in India only in 2000.Shrik88music (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10)also this article also gives the idea that he shared realtion with three women - http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=7148 one needs to make interpretations from the refernces . y does AB need ditto sentences.also there is bound to be some lines for which no online sources may available.

11) also y do u say that hindilyrics is not verifiable?? if its not raelaible even then atleast u have seen that info has been provided of judges! now till the time v gfind some online refrence let it remain unreferenced or just mention Samanta,G.P Sippy and other directors were among the panel of judges.Shrik88music (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrik, just a couple of points. Yes, it's true that not all sources must be available online. However, information that is called into question must still be sourced to something that is widely enough available that it could be verified at, say, a public library, or at a bookstore, if someone chose to seek it out. Also, it may be appropriate for you to insert a small quote of the material on the talk page, so that other editors can verify that the information is appropriately parphrased. Online sources are preferred because of ease of use, but they are not the only things that can be used.

"Interpreting" sources is prohibited. Please read original research, particularly the information on novel synthesis. This is particularly true in a biography of a living person. We cannot make leaps of logic. The information you seek to insert must be explicitly stated in sourcing. You must understand this as it is key to your being successful here. This policy is non-negotiable.

Hindilyrics.net is not reliable because there is no information on the site that suggests that it was put together with any kind of professional editorial oversight or fact-checking. It was done by a company called "SEO India," which suggests that it was put together not to be a source reliable enough to use in an encyclopedia, but rather to generate pay per click revenue for a search engine optimization company. If you want to use a source, and other editors are questioning its reliability, you must be able to show that it meets our standards, which I laid out to you and which are contained here. Have you read this policy? So far you have not shown me that this site is reliable enough to meet our standards, beyond just telling me that it is in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not good enough.

Unfortunately, the information on the judges has been called into question and so far you have not provided a source to back it up. That means it cannot just "remain unreferenced." It must be removed until you can properly source it. Please read our policy on verifiability, which states:This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

Does this make sense? — e. ripley\^talk 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leave aside the judges point as i have tried hard in finding sources for it bu iam not getting it. other than that all others are very much proper but still that fellow didnt revert it to my artcile instaed was again saying citation needed etc... thats wat is wrong iam saying.Shrik88music (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can u also tell me what command should i paste to indicate that "a source is needed - a better one". example for the judges point i cause i know that the fact mentioned in hindilyrics,com is right but where from i can provide the names of others from?so just give me the symbol.Shrik88music (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

points to be noted

my comment to him Sources do not need to be available online -- this is first point 2)but they do need to specifically be able to verify the content in the article --this even i know very well - all readers will be able to understand through the references that the line written in wiki is the summary of the info written in the link given.there need not be direct references. this reply applies to early life as well as the contest. 3)there can be some lines for which no reference is provided only cause even though they are facts , unfortunately no online source is available!! 4)who r u to decided whether its believable or not! e ripley says i have to assume that a person like u is working in good faith !!!! the present references and the words inserted by me in article is LOGICAL

For eripley just read the paras early life and adult life with their referncestogether. u would find that the scentences written by me is doing full justice to the things written in the article in the link. also banana says he will keep reverting. my question is when refrences are genuine and when summarising the info from 2 to 3 sources we understand that " anju for example was a girl friend of khanna and that their realtion was for 7 years and that they didnt speak for 17 years and today they are good friends" and " samanta's production house was not United Producers and that United Producer is a organisation which is stll in existence - it only means all producers of a particular era.in 1965 contest was announced and samanta ,gp sippy were in that panel of judges - this can be seen in the statement made by him in the interview of Samanta"samanta's own prduction house was Samanta evterprises ie ShaktiFilms and br chopra , yash chopra, gp sippy, nasir hussain - thses all were other prducers and dirctors of that time and all had thier own prduction houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=388231345 - this version terefoe complies with the wiki policies as well as addresses all the so called concerns in good faith raised by banana. so he must not revert it unless in other sections or any new error he finds.Shrik88music (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above. — e. ripley\^talk 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

u havent replied as to how come refernces are not giving u the information properly...??? what iam talking about i have discussed above Shrik88music (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

newly inserted sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=388336011

1)Rajesh Khanna was one of eight finalists in the 1965 All India Talent Contest organised by United Producers and Filmfare from more than ten thousand contestants[19].He won All India Talent Contest[20] which was judged by the leading producers of that time.He made his film debut in the 1966 film Aakhri Khat directed by Chetan Anand, followed by Raaz directed by G. P. Sippy both of which were a part of his predetermined prize for winning the All-India United Producers’ Talent Competition[21].G.P. Sippy and Nasir Hussain were the first to sign Rajesh Khanna after he won the contest[22].Being under contarct with United Producers ,he got projects like Ittefaq[23]

2)In the late 1960s and early 70's, Khanna fell in love with the then fashion designer and actress Anju Mahendru 3)He is addressed as Kaka [6] now i think no issues must be found by any person!!

hope u r happy with these lines. refrences i have provided. infact screen artciles are very helpful.

NO maintainace tag is now needed either as all needed references are present in tha article. even wording have been changed according to satisfaction of critics!! Shrik88music (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hey there E. Ripley. I have a question for you. After researching the wiki help I cannot figure out why "I love all things finance" appears as my signature when making edits (rather than displaying my user name). If you click on the signature it still goes to my user page. Is this something I may have done accidentally? Cause I do love finance. I love all things finance. (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valterre, you'll find My Preferences as part of the menu including My Talk, My Watchlist etc. If you open My Preferences, go down to the section on signatures, and delete anything in the box where it says 'type your signature in this box', save and exit, you should find that it stops doing this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker[reply]

Please help me sort this

Hi E. Ripley,

If you would, please help me explain myself on my talk page if I've got my foot stuck in my mouth again. Thanks!

Hello, E. Ripley. You have new messages at Machine Elf 1735's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller

He is doing it again. I accused him of unfairly targeting me and my feeling that he was "bullying" me. I need some help from someone. This is totally unfair because once again he is targeting me work. He is seeking to delete a well referenced article here [3] and he is colluding against me here: [4] James Frankcom (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to delete the article I'd take it to AfD. Other editors raised the issue of claims that people named in the article had a de jure claim to be Princes of Gwynedd. There were sources for this and additionally as it referred to a living possible claimant there were BLP problems. Even you seem to agree that those claims could be removed. This goes back to [5] where you were warned about accusations such as this. You are taking something personally which is not aimed at you. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why, once again, do you target one of my articles? Also, your collusion with Snowded just looks like you are "out to get me" and not unreasonably so. Don't you see that it will appear you are harassing me? Would it not be better if you took a back seat and allow others to review this without your involvement. You come across as all super-reasonable but then I see you discussion with another about me and suddenly it appears you have a set view and are deliberately targeting me. Of course I take it personally when I look at the pattern of your involvement, your well known "professional sceptic" views and your discussion about me in an extremely negative way with other editors. Please leave me alone. I am more than happy to improve the article but your eagerness to just delete is destructive and extremely counter productive.James Frankcom (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Doug said "We shouldn't even be discussing this, just removing it...I'd do it now but I'm going out. This claim is clearly contentious. We should also be removing other unsourced, including stuff that is unverifiable because it is just sourced to 'Burke's Peerage'." Hence why I showed the information from Burke's and my anxiety that you were plotting to delete it all. I can reference each and every single line if you want. James Frankcom (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That 'not discussing this' was about BLP violations, claiming that a BLP was the Head of the House of Aberffraw with no source. I now realise that the Burke's problem was because it wasn't clear that you believe that the only Burke's source is their online web site, and that that was what was meant by the cite to just Burke's Peerage. It also appeared that you were saying that Burke's says that the Evan Anwyl is the Head of the House of Aberffraw, but that may have been a misunderstanding. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update from adopt a user

Hi there E. Ripley! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rajesh Khanna

hello h r u u have been not in touch ... also u didnt reply for my previous messages.

anyways rajesh khanna artcile is setteled almost as all have agreed to the facts... i want to add few more info but not now but in future.Shrik88music (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.

Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions}, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa ^(Talk)

Believe it or not

I thought that the "citation needed" was ok if you put in a reasonable statement but you removed it completely. I put it back it but I found a source. So you don't have to Ripley's Believe it or Not, you just have to click on to the source and believe it! பின்லாந்து (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am not a troublemaker. But may I do what you do and remove all material on living people that has no source? I think it is the correct thing to do. பின்லாந்து (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this and tell me if it is ok to remove. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoaib_Akhtar&action=historysubmit&diff=392073613&oldid=391750115 பின்லாந்து (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

victim

It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts. (Account information: block log · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed socks

without reason i was blocked on 15th oct. i edited last on 9th oct den only on 15th oct.... read my talk page

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ARTICLE AND unexplained and UNCOSNTRUCTIVE EDITS AND REVERTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY 122.161.47.26 , 115.241.63.61,Geniac,IGeMiNix RECENTLY....EARLEIR THERE WERE FEW MORE. logically even the edits made by others are very illogical. they did those edits and this user genaiac blocked.. i want some action asgainstv thgis userShrik88music (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my account being interfered with

the user genaic continues to put trhe tag that i hve 2 0r more accounts etc.. ask her/him to stop.. i want some action against her.Shrik88music (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Sockpuppeteer tag to your talk page because you appear to have logged out to make problematic edits as an IP several times. See WP:SOCK. Please do not remove it in future; you do not own your user page. See WP:UP#OWN. A list of the suspected sockpuppets can be found at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shrik88musicShrik88music (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Shrik88music

Here are some examples of edits made by the IPs I tagged as being suspected sockpuppets of Shrik88music (talk · contribs):

111.119.196.239 (talk · contribs):

Dharam Aur Kanoon: "box office hit film starring Superstar Rajesh Khanna"
Agar Tum Na Hote: "super hit blockbuster film", "Superstar Rajesh Khanna"
Thodisi Bewafaii: "superhit", "superstar"

120.138.125.184 (talk · contribs):

Rajesh Khanna: refocused lead on "superstar" nickname rather than being in 180 films

120.138.125.186 (talk · contribs):

Rajesh Khanna: focus on "superstar" nickname
Dharam Aur Kanoon: "box office hit film starring Superstar Rajesh Khanna"

122.177.31.117 (talk · contribs):

Hrishikesh Mukherjee: "Superstar Rajesh Khanna"

122.177.97.143 (talk · contribs):

Rajesh Khanna: "superstar" as well as some other stunning, magic, excellent and brilliant puffery.

Here are some examples of edits made by Shrik88music to many of same articles:

Dharam Aur Kanoon: "superstar"
Agar Tum Na Hote: "superhit film stars Superstar Rajesh Khanna"
Thodisi Bewafaii: "superhit", "superstar"
Rajesh Khanna: refocused lead on "superstar" nickname rather than being in 180 films

The edits made the IPs appear to be quite similar to those made by Shrik88music. Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP is one form of sock puppetry. I therefore tagged those IPs as being suspected sockpuppets of Shrik88music. --Geniac (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Matters

Good Day @E. Ripley, I would like to ask a hand from you about the wikipedia editing. Since I am still a newcomer I currently face the troubles of {{}} things. I am a student also and it is our official summer break, I am bored at home that is why I am here in wikipedia so please lend me a hand. Hoping for you consideration

Note: English is not my first language and I am just using free internet from our service providerWalangForever (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]