User talk:ThaThinThaKiThaTha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, ThaThinThaKiThaTha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kailash29792 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia uploads

Hi, good work uploading those images on Wikimedia. Two suggestions I have for you: one, give the files appropriate file names before uploading them, and two: try to remove their watermarks (if you can). Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a huge task to remove all watermarks.. uploading is already a long process (finding a good picture, rights mgmt). I would prefer people come up voluntarily and do cropping.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

General caution

I see you are involved in an edit war with TheRedPenOfDoom, an enemy to many a Wikipedian. But I advice you not to badmouth him, because doing so can lead to you being blocked. I see you have the potential to become a great editor (who may one day make an article a GA), and therefore I do not want to see you being blocked. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Wikipedia is not a battleground. It's first you who should stop bad-mouthing TRPoD. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Jiiva shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Edit warring to reinsert your preferred but likely WP:COPYRIGHT violating image is unacceptable. Revert yourself now and STOP uploading copyright images claiming the creators have released them under free use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not in the position to say whether it is copyrighted or not. There are two license reviewers who didn't support your position at all --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is correct here. Are you in a position to say that the image doesn't constitute a copy-vio? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, I never claimed that.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Albert Einstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - DVdm (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Albert Einstein with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing now.

Having edited on WIKI for nearly four years I DO NOT need educating from you on what are "reliable sources". If you feel that a report by a qualified lawyer (and in a established newspaper that too) and the other sites including indianscriptures.com are not sufficient for you and you go about reverting you are barking up the wrong tree. Go to some other website/encyclopedia and do the same. GET ME an ADMIN who thinks those sites are unreliable. AND STAY AWAY YOURSELF. This is the last time I am saying this. SumerianPrince (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SumerianPrince, if you have been here for "nearly four years", you must be familiar with all the rules and policies. And one such rule is to not attack users in strong language. When you write in capital letters, that clearly means you are shouting, which still counts as an attack. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, its good that you are here, I am aware of what you say. I think telling you this would help as you have spoken to him earlier as I see on this page. To cut a long story short please have a look at the Padmanabhaswamy Temple page on which this user has been engaging persistently in reverting edits as regarding the mention of the temple in some of the existing Hindu scriptures. You would be able to see the sites for yourself and anybody (I think) would deem those sites reliable unless WIKI has a page outlining exactly which sites are reliable by name. I am aware of the list that WIKI has of sites that are spam and those that are unreliable but not the other way round. As to whether this user is over-enthused by WIKI or if his agenda is something else or he just wants to create trouble I know not and care not. But he does not get to decide which sites meet RS and which don't. That has to be made clear to him. I am reporting him all the same for he never states what he considers RS. Anyway it is not his "criterion" but WIKI's that should be satisfied. Regards. SumerianPrince (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I clearly stated at the talkpage of the article what is acceptable as RS and what not. You stop using abusive language or you will get blocked.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2014 (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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus

You don't have consensus for this change, and per our guidelines on reversions, when there is a dispute, the status quo should remain. The 400 crore low end was the status quo as of 29 October and was changed because Siddiqsazzad apparently read the source incorrectly, or didn't read it at all. I suggest you self-revert that change until there is a new consensus, lest you draw scrutiny for edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to remind you of your discussion with an editor at the same page, where you also interpreted sources wrongly regarding languages (Tamil language). I see a similar pattern here, hence I would suggest to you, that you refrain from editing on Indian cinema related articles in future. You create unnecessary hurdles for other good faith editors.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no misinterpretation; the user or users were trying to extrapolate a conclusion without sufficient information. That, however, is a moot point, as is your meaningless suggestion. The more important point, and the one that is potentially sanctionable, is the change you made in the midst of a discussion where you did not have consensus. That is edit-warring, and it is disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't change quotations

I'd think that would be obvious. I'm referring to your change at Tamil language. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I de-quoted the sentence as you can clearly see, because other people said so as well. Shulman didn't quote Ramanujan..... Shulman explicitly refered to Tamil as the world's only continuous classical language. I think, that's a pretty significant statement, slightly differing from Ramanujan. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Such statements should be attributed, as I've done. Your edit made it appear that Ramanujan was the source for the sentence. Hart's statement needs attribution also. If you want to add Shulman's, fine, although I'm now thinking if this all belongs in the lead - 3 quotes seems overkill for the lead. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we just summarize them in 1 lead sentence and give all quotes in later sections. My suggestion would be to use Shulman in lead section and quote everyone in the lead of the history section as an introduction.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please refrain from making major edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to Sangam literature, without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a major change. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hi there, re: this, though discussions can sometimes get heated, we just can't stoop to lobbing personal attacks like saying you're saving someone from loneliness. It's not helpful or sustainable in a community editing project. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Indus Valley Civilisation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC))

Tamil Brahmi

I have added proper references. Please do not revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin7013 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeladi Excavation Site

Please stop wasting others' time and help maintaining the standards of Wikipedia. The content you keep deleting has been cited by authentic sources and has scientific proof obtained in the form of radio carbon dating results from a reputed Lab in USA. Tamil Nadu Archaeological department has officially published the results as well. Please note that, any further deletion of content without prior discussion and approval will get you banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaneshB (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL! WP:BOOMERANG. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please tone down the language. We all know that Keezhadi is extraordinary, which could possibly open the pandora’s box of Indian history. That’s exactly why we have to wait for feedback from all experts. This is an encyclopedia, where people do expect to receive established information, not a news portal on archaeology.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Kerala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magadha Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Malayalam

Hi ThaThinThaKiThaTha! I have seen your revert in Malayalam, which fully I support. You might also be interested in the pages Karintamil, Old Malayalam and Middle Malayalam, which look just as poorly sourced as the additions to Malayalam. Much of this is based on a single source from 1939. –Austronesier (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will keep an eye on those articles. ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm SP013. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Radhe Shyam, Prabhas, and Pooja Hegde have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. SP013 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Radhe Shyam, Prabhas, Pooja Hegde, you may be blocked from editing. SP013 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello ThaThinThaKiThaTha. Please avoid reverting another editor's removal of your post from their talk page. How they want to manage their talk page is up to them. Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SP013 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday

Hello I would like to get some help to make the following edit to the Swaminarayan Sampraday article.

Currently the section in dispute reads as follows:

Gunatit Samaj

The Yogi Divine Society was established in 1966, by Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Babubhai after they were excommunicated from BAPS by Yogiji Maharaj. The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf, led a number of young women to renounce their families and join his ashram under his leadership. After Dadubhai’s death in 1986, an ascetic named Hariprasad Swami became the leader of the Yogi Divine Society. The Yogi Divine Society became known as the Gunatit Samaj and consists of several wings: namely, Yogi Divine Society, The Anoopam Mission, and The Gunatit Jyot.

There is a proposal to change it to this based on the following sources:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Acts_of_Faith/Sgs9BAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22dadubhai+patel%22&pg=PT170&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/tPkexi2EhAIC?gbpv=1&bsq=dadubhai%20patel%20was

The Change (Update Section):

The Yogi Divine Society was established in 1966, by Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Babubhai after they were excommunicated from BAPS by Yogiji Maharaj. The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf, led a number of young women to renounce their families and join his ashram under his leadership. Dadubhai believed Narayanswarupdas Swami, also known as Pramukh Swami, was against him and persuaded the BAPS trustees to remove him. After Dadubhai’s death in 1986, an ascetic named Hariprasad Swami became the leader of the Yogi Divine Society. The Yogi Divine Society became known as the Gunatit Samaj and consists of several wings: namely, Yogi Divine Society, The Anoopam Mission, and The Gunatit Jyot. Yogiji Maharaj's images and prior gurus are displayed at all Gunatit Samaj temples.

Is this something that is allowed or not?

Applebutter221 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Damascus Steel

I've provided you a reference to a royal society publication. http://www.jstor.org/stable/93135. Did you read it? It clearly indicates that Damascus Steel had been produced in SL and called Sinhala wane. Please read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrantbrian (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Malayalam, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have removed referenced material. Please discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. Ifnord (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ifnord: The edits which ThaThinThaKiThaTha has reverted were for the most part utterly bad and uncyclopedic, and also unsupported by the "sources". The one who failed to discuss was in the first place the other editor who kept on inserting their stuff instead of discussing them per PW:BRD after the first revert. I have opened a talk discussion now. –Austronesier (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Your recent editing history at Mleccha shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sinauli moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sinauli, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sinauli

Hello, ThaThinThaKiThaTha. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sinauli, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sinauli

Hello, ThaThinThaKiThaTha. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sinauli".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sarasvati river

diff Removed images from lead section, which convey a POV version of identification of Sarasvati river from Rigveda - serious? WP:RS is "pov"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant, that putting the images in the lead section would be POV, because the identification is debated, not "proven", just like Helmand identification is debated. Why should we put one specific version up there to showcase the article? ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)