User talk:Nonikay2k

Welcome!

Hello, Nonikay2k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

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! Kukini 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

202.83.42.248 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I am a researcher based in India, and would love your guidance. One question that I am facing now: someone posted a pejorative comment about "Johnson C. Philip" on whom I have written considerably. I removed him and asked in "discussion" for more info from that person. He has not replied so far. I would appreciate you pointing me to documents which will help me how to handle such situations.[reply]

Personal ties to Johnson C. Philip

Hi, I notice your only edits on wikipedia are related to one article: Johnson C. Philip. Are you him or do you personally know him or do you have some other connections. I ask because wikipedia has a policy against people adding to subjects they are personally attached to. Thanks. Arbusto 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonikay2k 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I did research on him and felt I had enough material to write on him. However if this goes against the policies of Wikipedia, I am willing to remove as much of the material as you feel is inappropriate. Also, whether this can be called personal attachment, I do not know. I felt he was a person worth writing. I will remove references to his education entirely, as credited/unaccredited has a totally different connotation in non-USA countries, and all the world does not yet think the same way on this issue.[reply]

Use your own judgement, I wanted to bring it to your attention in case it turned out later that you have some connection. Arbusto 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way you are attacking this article is strange. Take the example of "accreditation". The word does not mean the same worldwide, nor is the process of accreditation the same worldwide. You are using a basically American definition and system to label as "unaccredited" institutions that have a national standing. A good example is All India Naturopathy Council. Since it is not possible to satisfy the whims and fancies of editors prejudiced towards the American system of education, I simply removed the items related to degrees in this article. About connection, thanks for the necessary reminder. Nonikay2k

Please note, somebody has nominated this article for deletion. You may wish to discuss and vote on the matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, with sadness, that might is right in posting/editing articles. Those who know how to manipulate, and those who have time to mutiliate articles, are systematically destroying things they do not like. A good example is the "accreditation" issue in relation to the article on "Johnson C. Philip". An American definition of "accreditation" is being used to discredit the education of this person.

I had posted this article after much research [three of us had to do research, in three consecutive years, on this person as part of our masters thesis and we had amassed a welath of data based upon oral research and written sources], but I notice that person who have no knowledge can [and are] esily mutiliate the article.

The irony is that in the name of deleting links going this person's personal web page, "Arbusto" deleted even the bibliograpy of books published by national and international publishers. This is not only vandalism, but also pure bullying. I do not have time to fight in a court where there is no arbitrator and where might is right.

I recommend that the article be deleted. I regret that I wasted so much time to improve/expand this article. Nonikay2k

Thed problem with the article is very simple: several editors have been unable to verify the contents from reputable secondary sources. These are necessary in order to ensure that we confrom to the neutral point of view. You can fix that by citing published sources (not blogs, personal websites etc.) to back up the claims that, for example, he is a significant figure in Christian apologetics. Do read the policies I linked. Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider staying

Hi. I read this, where you said you were leaving. I hope you change your mind. Unfortunately, a lot of new users have similiar problems. Most articles deleted, seem to be from new users. However, usually those who stay, have more success with future contributions. Also, while certain areas of Wikipedia are filled with divisive debate, and edit conflicts, such as religious topics, most topic areas have much fewer conflicts. Also, we have many thousands of editors, and a million articles, so its a mistake to judge Wikipedia based on a tiny fraction of the whole. There's lots of stuff on Wikipedia I dislike, but there's a bunch more I like, and if you hang around, you'll likely feel the same way. --Rob 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your encouraging words. However, I made my dicsion after doing a thorough checking of Arbustoos's footprints on the Wiki. I notice that he has been systematically deleting information related to conservative Christians and conservative Christian organizations. He mutiliates where he cannot delete. And he adds information in such a clever manner that even what is right leads to humiliation. (An apology can be more humiliating than an insult). What is more, I notice that none, repeat NONE, has been able to stop his adventures. He is freely doing what he wants to and none of you has been able to stop him from his anarchy. Else, show me one example where any of you has stopped him in his tracks. Why is it that he has always got to be right??? His POVs are NPOVs while researched stuff by us is POV or simply garbage because there is no arbitrator between him and me. Just show me one example of arbitration in my case. I also notice that others who contributed to this article on Johnson C. Philip are not raising their voice. I know one of them (my junior who also did research on Philip). He told me he would never come back to Wiki, so disappointed was he also to see Arbustoo having his way and none of you coming to arbitration. We both have meaningful occupation in life and cannot fight against a person who can do anything without us having an arbitrator. Thanks for being nice to me. Nonikay2k