Jump to content

User talk:Mahensingha/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41

Your AfC denial of Draft:Ambarish_Mitra

Hi Mahensingha. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on which elements of your AfC denial on Draft:Ambarish_Mitra need to be fixed. Are the sources not good enough, or do they not show that Mitra is notable? Just trying to know what needs to be fixed specifically. Thanks Chcameron (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refer WP:BIO, WP:BLP, Biographies of living people on wikipedia are more serious on the issue of Notability of the person. Referencing be based on secondary sources, as the primary sources do not make a person notable, It becomes notable when a second of third agency or field recognise the person, because in general every person is notable with in his scope of work. Wish you Happy editing wikipedia.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made more edits to make sure everything is sourced by proper secondary sources. Has it met the threshold of notability? Chcameron (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please wait a little. There are many more reviewers, let them give their opinions too. Biographies of living people needs a careful review before approval and notability as a person, specially of living people, involves a lot to be examined.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:18:36, 26 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bodicacia


Rejection of AfC Draft

Hi @Mehensingha, after waiting a MONTH for review, my AfC draft was summarily rejected by you as reading too much like an advertisement. Can you please elaborate? Most reviewers provide clear guidance as to why a draft does not meet WP standards, yet you offer no information or specifics. Thank you Bodicacia (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Bodicacia

Bodicacia (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All the links are given on the decline notice itself, Please follow the links to read about detailed policies of candidature of an wikipedia article. Just work upon them. Happy editing.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MahenSingha, but I have already studied these criteria and worked hard to draft an article that would meet specifications. I am at a loss about how to proceed from here. Can you direct me to specific language in the text that seems too promotional, non-neutral, or unsupported by reliable sources? Thank you. Bodicacia (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You have given a new user probably the least helpful answer that you were able to, Mahensingha. Please consider whether this was a helpful act and answer their question properly and in full. If you cannot do this please reconsider your membership of the AFC review volunteers.
I am reverting this review. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I welcome your initiative, but actually I did not get time due to being personally busy. I am still ready to extend all sort of help in future whenever I get time. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 13:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You had the time to make a reply. Please, next time, choose to make one with substantially more thought. You could have said "I am busy right now, but I promise to give you a good answer." or any more useful form of words. Not only did I revert your review, I decided that it met our criteria. It needs improvement, yes, but it is in a current state where it has a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Please improve your quality of work.
I do not understand what you are trying to say with the words "I welcome your initiative, but actually I did not get time due to being personally busy." 'But' seems to be an unusual conjunction to deploy in that sentence to the point of aggravating the reader. It feels like the "I'm sorry, but" form of words, a form calculated to pretend not to cause offence while giving grave offence at the same time.
Regardless, Bodicacia deserves an apology from you. Please provide it. Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Failure is failure. I accept that it was on my part that I could not help a new user in time. I apologised also here. Using the term "Your initiative" just mean to welcome step taken by you. May be my choice of words for you was incorrect hence I aplogise to you as well. Your suggestions will certainly be given due weightage to avoid mistakes in future, however, I will always look forward that some one like you will always guide and correct me, when ever I make any mistakes. With regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 21:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Neue Gestaltung

Hi Mahensingha, many thanks for reviewing my draft article Draft:Neue Gestaltung. However, could you be please be so kind to elaborate on your reasons for your disapproval, as I reworked the references based on the recommendations given by the former reviewer. Truly appreciate your time and feedback and many thanks in advance. Mehrinhalt (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all please remove all the redlinks, they do not give a nice look to your draft.You must carefully follow the comments of other reviewers who suggested you to prefer independent sources. Most of your sources appears to be promotional or self published web sources. Please abide by WP:Golden rule. In order to establish notability of the subject opt for secondary sources only. Also do not use the promotional language, instead use informative sentences only e.g. avoid using terms like- unique, deep understanding of design etc. which looks like promotion or glorification of the subject. The tone of article shall follow WP:NPOV, present form giving catalogue of publications, links to organisational sites etc. gives the article a promotional look. Also, if you like you may add up headings like "Aims of the Organisation, in place of "Feilds of Interest", however it depends on your choice only and is not a point of review. Focus on the sources and contents verifying notability of the article subject. There is no harm if the article is small at beginning as it can be expanded any time afterwards, but the point is that the contents initially added be suitably sourced as per WP:RS and WP:USEPRIMARY. Please work on these areas, a team of reviewers is always here to help. Wish you happy editing.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Submission of Draft:Kavuri Venkaiah

Hi Mahensingha

I updated the references as suggested. Most of the article was rewritten from NG Ranga's book "Distinguished Acquaintances". I am happy to provide a copy of the pages. Thanks for the review. Venki.1130 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Editon Page 'Gwalior':Shobhit Agarwal

Hi Mahensingha

I think 'Scindia State of Gwalior' is part of history of current Gwalior city. The Scindia State of Gwalior does not exist as of today. Please visit other big city pages and familiarize with classification of information on those pages under History. Please let me know your specific objections regarding the changes I did. Thanks for the review. Shobhit85 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Editor, apart from 'Scindia State of Gwalior', what do you say about the other changes/blanking of information you made/did there tagging them to be advertising. How can you treat a government venture the M.P.housing board established D.D. Nagar this way. How appearance of merely names of educational institutions attributed to advertising. Blanking of information without obtaining consensus is never a good edit practice. It may lead to more edit conflicts in near future.--MahenSingha (Talk) 08:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mahensingha. You have new messages at Dalahäst's talk page.
Message added 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dalahäst (let's talk!) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reports

@Mahensingha: Well, the situation is like this: don't edit war. The ANI issue was denied and he never filled out the 3RR application. Ogress smash! 09:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, NPOV was my issue, yet I even did not put the tags back, what so ever he removed. Regards--MahenSingha (Talk) 09:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Blanking on User talk:108.233.161.0

I noticed that you reverted User:108.233.161.0 blanking their own talk page. Just an FYI: per WP:OWNTALK, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages (this is often seen as an acknowledgement that they've read it). This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users. There is no requirement that users type a response. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It was blanking the edit warnings, but anyway, if policy is so then it is fine.--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, blanking edit warnings is okay (see WP:BLANKING for more details), the only things that users can't blank from their own pages are things like block notices while a user is blocked and tags to delete the talk page itself. --14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs)
Ok, Thanks for information.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Rajput/ Maratha confusion

please note that Shivaji had Rajput ancestry. see here (http://global.britannica.com/topic/Maratha) that some Marathas claim Rajput ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoni (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as the claim is concerned All the Jats, Ahirs and Gurjars are claiming. Additionally, Kurmis, Lodhi are also claiming to be the Rajputs. Can all be accomodated. As far as the Jats, Ahirs and Gurjars are concerned, most of our ancient sources do suggest the same, but in general opposed by the editor's community. I prefer to settle the issues with discussions and agreements not by the conflicts, because it further increases the problems. Be on the grounds of reality, any great personality was accepted to be of royal order but in fact Maratha itself is a distinct word and all the Marathas even do not claim to be Rajputs. So the matter may become more complicated.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Article

I see that you have edited the Tampa, Florida article. So if you are interested you could atleast take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. I have invested quite some time editing it over the years. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

CarDekho

Did you check the duplication detctor for copyright violations for CarDekho? For example, this shows copies from the company's About Us page, and this shows copies of phrases from the Times of India. AND... does anyone check AfD? This page was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho.

Is it not obvious that this article is blatant advertising? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Issues regarding contents be settled in due course of time, but yes the subject is well known and popularly known. Any issues with the contents, the article can be tagged accordingly and we are free to enforce the changes or removal of copied or objctional contents.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation is a serious issue and if you're not able to recognize obvious copy-pastes from news articles and press releases then you should not be accepting Articles for Creation. Please be more careful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and suggestion. I will certainly abide by your advice and will be more careful in AFC reviews.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your message to me

Your message to me is nonsensical. I created the page 9 years ago, not "recently"; moreover, some other editors re-purposed the title to something else which is what your gripe appears to be about. Either be more careful on who you accuse of what or just refrain from accusing anyone of anything. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

May be you misunderstood. I have no idea why did you use such an immature language for me. Do you think this the adequate way to discuss the matters. It looks like that you are talking about some Bot generated messages used by me while reviewing the articles. Hope you will come up more clearly next time.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Churaman Ahir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagar. 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) 10:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Yogendra SinghPVC.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yogendra SinghPVC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —innotata 08:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential admin

Hi, I notice you're on Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. Wikipedia would benefit from more admins. If you have been editing for more than 12 months (preferably 24+ months), and have been editing fairly consistently for the past 6 months (preferably 12+ months) with at least 100 edits a month (this tool will help) - or an explanation for any gaps, and haven't been blocked in the past three years - or a good explanation for a recent block, don't have a recent history of edit warring or arguing with other editors, feel you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear SilkTork, First of all , a lot of thanks for noticing me and my work. Using the suggested tool, What I found can be seen Here. I have been editing wikipedia since 2011, no blocks so far, 3650 edits in past one year and 4,208 in total, presently little less contribution due to personal reasons. If you think I am eligible for Adminship,then I can assure that I will responsibly contribute to the new role with the same spirit as I followed as an editor. Thanks, once again. With due respect and gratitude. --MahenSingha (Talk) 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for long delay in getting back to you, I have been tied up. Your contributions are a little low at the moment, the community do like to see more involvement and commitment. No promises, but I do like that you are willing to put yourself forward as an admin, so I'm happy to give you support, honest opinion, and advice when you're ready. When you've gained more experience and knowledge of a wider range of areas of Wikipedia, get back in touch and we'll talk some more. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot SilkTork, I shall certainly get back to you and it will really be my pleasure. Regards--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nareshrana01

Hi, Based on your edits to correct the vandalism to Thakur (Indian title) by this editor could you please check his edits on the Dhadwal and Bharatpur, Rajasthan articles. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Richard Harvey, the said user is consistently engaged in vandalizing the articles. He/she often edits for the purpose of showing what he/she wants but with no reliable sources. The same he did to the articles you mentioned above and everywhere else. --MahenSingha (Talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Probably best to ask for page protection on the articles if a user block is not helping stop the users vandalism. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why cant you accept that Yadavs are sudras?

You are a cow herder caste and yet you refer to ahirs as 'fighters'? Is that a joke? Just look at Yadavs,you are a small and weak people who have more in common physically with dalits than with martial races like Rajputs and Jats. You need to accept this and stop posting pseudo history all over this website. I also recommend that you stop taking out your inferiority complex on pages of more Marti groups. Accept your place in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.120.220 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur completely, in my honest opinion calling them a 'fighter race' is laughable.Burbak (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am not what you predicted. I am an editor and researcher and what so ever I get in the sources, the same is projected herein. Give me your personal email and I will mail the proof of my caste status and that may be a surprise for you. But that is not the point here. Please go through the Yadav article once again and find that few scholars believe that they are shudra or mlechhas, where as the opinion of some other scholars may differ and being a neutral article it accommodates both the views. I am active on more than 4000 caste related articles and certainly I can't belong to every caste. Its your own mental set up that you titled me for a singular caste. May be the history mentions them more than other castes and thus I get more sources. Removing maintenance tags restricts development of an article to the wikipedia standard and taking account of someone's edit efforts for a sick casteism POV restricts development of good editor in you. I advice you to refrain from such practices and discuss genuinely with healthy attitude. I Wish you happy editing on wikipedia--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a very interesting discussion on the internets biggest history forum 'Historum'. It's about the recent manipulation of history by members of the Yadav community to try and uplift there status from sudras to kshatriyas. Even the British gazeeteer reffered to them as sudras showing that they have only recently started to claim a higher status. May I also add that from an anthropological perspective yadavs share more in common physically with lower castes ie shorter height,darker skin and wider noses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.97.11 (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again another well said point which I agree with. Burbak (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of tags on Bihari Rajputs

Hi, please can you take part on the discussion on the talk page regarding your reasons for giving the tags. Thanks Burbak (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Bihari Rajputs

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Bihari Rajputs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

While I appreciate that the other user has repeatedly removed your tags, it must be said that you added many tags with hardly any discussion, or with clearly insufficient evidence (you shouldn't accuse people of WP:COI too lightly), and in any case, engaging in edit warring is not okay even if you're "in the right". Neither party has communicated, you've just being adding/removing each other's tags with the odd accusation thrown on the talk page. LjL (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check the history of the talk page. I discussed enough and gave full description of tagging in each edit summary. It is certainly not so. Every time the other party aggressively gone far beyond the policies. Every incident was reported on Admins notice board and has undergone the discussions. You are requested to go through the whole issue and the activity log of the party. How ever, I certainly take your suggestion in a positive spirit. Thanks.
Reporting every little thing to noticeboards is not the way to go, the way to go is discussing on the article's talk page, and meanwhile not reverting like a machine (because that's edit warring). I'm really not "requested" to go through the whole history, since when the bright-line rule is broken, that alone is a clear sign things are being done wrong. Do discuss more, the article's talk page is here for that. LjL (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not seen my user rights. It is not that I simply reverted 3 or even more edits of the user. I used my Rollbacker rights, a special administrative feature used against Vandalism to revert consecutive edits of that nature. Even then replying you, I used the words in "I certainly take your suggestion in a positive spirit". Still if you are not satisfied, then please proceed for further arbitration against me. Hope that satisfies you. further, The edits of the user are assessed by Admins and other experienced editors. They even blocked him for his disruptive edit behaviour. Within no time after the removal of this block, he iterated the same and still you think and suggest me that these are the small things and shall not be reported. Do you think that along with me even the Admins have also mistake. Here goes the policy following which edits are rolled back-
Rollback "rights" absolutely don't give you any exemption from edit warring rules, and they are really just a technical features which amounts to nothing more than Twinkle features. You can see that allowed uses of rollback are very limited. Obvious vandalism is one valid use, but the user's edits were not that ("vandalism" has a narrow definition). It concerns me that you seem to be thinking - unless I misinterpreted - that because you have rollbacker privileges, then you can trump WP:3RR. I did not say that you should not report things: that's up to you. I said that you definitely should discuss things on the talk page irrespective of any reports. I said that the article's talk page showed a concerning lack of discussion between you two. I do not seek "satisfaction" but, on the contrary, I wish that all parties involved seek consensus by means of discussion instead of by means of edit warring. LjL (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of what you iterate has been answered. Your fresh question is regarding discussion on the article's talk page, Please note that if I found that the article is not in correct shape, certainly I can tag it with an appropriate edit summary. In response to that If someone disagrees then he should initiate the discussion. Simply removing the maintenance tags repeatedly is nothing less than disruption/vandalism and shall be dealt according to the policies. Further I answered your tag related query on the article's talk page. Let me also ask one thing to you that on this very page just have a glance what the user has written personally for me even without knowing or confirming anything from me. Even though I humbly requested. He never disclosed the reason that why is he removing the tags. It is really very good to support other editors but at the same time it is also required to guide them about the humble way of editing on wikipedia. I explained my stand, intention and my respect for another editor very clearly. Further it is up to you that in what manner you take up the things.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel I am not being partial to either of you. I need to point out (purely as a hypothetical) that if someone adds tags, and someone else removes them, and then the first person adds them again, and so on, and nobody explains anything, then both parties are at fault. Even if tags have been removed without explaining why, then that's a clear indication that when you re-add them, you should explain why you're re-adding them (and do so on the talk page, if the first time it was only done as an edit summary, as that proved not to be enough). LjL (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid to say that you certainly overlooked the other side. Since long enough I am here. But No problem. Its OK. Cheers. I am happy to interact with you. Thanx.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that, on this page, I seem to be concentrating on your behavior doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not considering the other person's behavior. At the same time, "but the other person behaved badly too!" is never a justification. LjL (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That is what I said. Have you discussed to this length with the other user. Certainly no. see his talk page is blank. What else to say, still I said that its my pleasure to interact with you. We learn a lot by interacting with people. Cheers. I have no complaints but the fact is fact.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you take lengthy, civil discussions as a burden instead of an honor. LjL (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The same honour shall be given to the other party as well, if you are impartial. Very frankly saying, you need not to feel sorry at all,you can feel that it is really an honour that I discussed everything with you, tried to tell you each and everything, what so ever happened in the case. Otherwise the blocks as well as the same reverts were done by the eminent admins also in this case. Still, I must say that by any means, if you feel my comments uncomfortable to you. Dear realize that the same is applied to me too. However, I asserted on the talk page, in your owner that you revert all the edits and I will certainly not oppose but the wikipedia shall still remain wikipedia. So let's stop. ok. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you say now User:LjL? See here], ultimately the truth came out. I suggest you to always look both the sides. I suspected and reported nothing wrong. I am doing my job since long with honesty and integrity. It is my earned credibility which granted me certain rights and privileges. You must have guided the other party about the wikipedia policies instead of sending links to me. I myself read and follow them. Still, I thank you for all of your advises.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've replied elsewhere since you posted this twice (but seriously "certain rights and privileges? you've got to be kidding me). LjL (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your rollbacker flag

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LjL (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

alha

Alha: A most powerfull rajpoot warrior of indian history: Alha, one of Parmal's warriors, son of Dasaratha of the Banaphar rajpoot; he is also called Madrakh, andGaygowal. In the body of the "Raisa" is mentioned incidentally how Alha, on one of Mahmud's invasions, when all the other Rajas, including Prithi Raj himself, shrank from an encounter with Mahmud, Alha, then a boy, volunteered to lead the fight, and was the means of inflicting the signal and well-known defeat on Mahmud. On this occasion, Prithi Raj, after the battle, in a solemn council, conferred the title of Gaygowal on Alha, with the remark that they (the Rajas) were like cows who needed a gowal (herdsman) to lead them,and he (Alha) had performed towards them the task that a herdsman does for his cows.

His other title of Madrakh was obtained when Manju,Raja of Bengal (a Solankhi Rajput), defeated Brahma Deva, the Parihar Raja of Janakpur in Mathil Desa. Alha then came forward to help him, and saved him from ignominious flight. As a Rajput by flight breaks his vow not to turn his back to the enemy, andincurs ignominy, Alha, helping Brahma Deva, saved him from losing his mad: hence his title. Then alha become more powerfull than ray pithaura or prithvi raj. He won all northern kingdom for Jaychand king of kannaj. Then he called Mandleshwar Maldleek .......... dear sir i am research scholar as wel as police sub inspector i was read all and mix ingradiants from book "earley ruler of khajuraho" "rethinking oral epics " Durgeshuppolice (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Durgeshuppolice, according to Wikipedia policies, we do not write anything of our own which may amount to be WP:OR. Whatever we find here is just the extract of the Reliable sources. In general, the contents without citation of proper sources get reverted and are frequently removed. I suggest to please add the contents with proper citation of acceptable reliable sources as per WP:RS, if you want the contents added by you shall stay permanent. Also, we avoid advertising for a caste, creed, region, religion, organisation or person and write the articles with neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Thanks. Wish you happy editing. Further we can discuss on the talk page of the concerned article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Incivility/ harassment by one editor friend- Disruptive Edit Warnings for No Edit/change of contents

changes that you have made on meena page

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Jalodiya (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the link for the change I made. Because as far as I know and evidences suggest that it is you who changed the contents of the said page which were decided by the other editors out of their mutual consent where I was not involved. I just asked you to discuss the reason why you want the change and still upholdind my stand that first obtain the consensus over the contents before adding or removing.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

mahensingha Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at meena, you may be blocked from editing. Jalodiya (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AFC: Review of Article Kundan Shrivastava

Hi,mahensingha

Greetings from India

I would like to request, please consider Kundan Srivastava biography. He is very young and notable activist in India fighting for Crime against women and women's rights since 10 years.

He also faced many misfortunes in life and shot by gun and kidnapped while fighting for cause. That news was banned by Wikipedia (Search on Google: Kundan Srivastava YourStory) you will get news.

He is a survivor and engineer by qualification but spending his life for Humanity cause.

Recently he is facing controversy when he was posted two girls pics and requested Indian women to avoid show off. 97% Women are supporting him and beleive in Indian traditions and dignity. Other side few models made a controversy.

Please consider his notability and I am sure many of biography on wikipedia less notable then Kundan Srivastava.

Waiting for best response.

Thanks Syd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syd4tech (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I Suggest you to please go through WP:GNG and WP:Notability first. Notability of the subject is the core issue for acceptance of an article. The acts of the subject become significant or more notable, if he is listed in the independent list or his notability is appreciated by the independent sources. Hence, sourcing the article accordingly may certainly help article getting through AFC review. Wish you all the best. Always at your service---MahenSingha (Talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry

Hi, I've emailed you on a matter related to your election candidature. Tony (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rao Rura Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal. 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) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahensingha/Archive_41&oldid=1114480562"