User talk:Yankee Rajput

Welcome, Yankee Rajput!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- zappa.jake at 13:37, Friday, November 22, 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism!

If you need any help, feel free to ask me. Thanks Gizza^Chat ^© 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

These are my interpretations only. Comments are numbered because it shows how many people support each side of the decision, and if each user has equal weight, then it will be an accurate reflection of the debate. The deciding bureaucrat may decide, however, to discount certain individuals, because they are new users, for example. It is therefore, not just one person one vote. Furthermore the quality of argument can be taken into account. This sometimes involves looking at "neutral" to tip the balance. It is a debate because there is fluidity up until the close, and sometimes the debate will cause a major swing.

There is a rule of thumb, which (from memory - so please check the figures) means that a candidate with 80% support will be sysopped, and one with 75-80% support will be up to the closing bureaucrat, but it seems will usually be sysopped. This is where the arguments on each side may have an influence. However, if you check out Sean Black's RfA, he was re-sysopped at a lower percentage than these by the bureaucrat's decision.

I hope this answers your question. Tyrenius 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption! Hrrmpgh. AGF! Bureaucrat's are chosen for their outstanding qualities by the community even more strictly than admins. There is transparency because it is a public decision, and bureaucrats can be challenged strongly at times by the generally outspoken wiki community. Tyrenius 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that, but have no fear: there are no shady government characters involved in appointing admins. I have seen bureaucrats challenged in the course of an RfA as part of the ongoing debate because of an intervention by one in some form or another. If you have any issues re. RfA, they can be raised on the RfA talk page, which is usually very busy and well followed. Do you have any issues? Tyrenius 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Tyrenius 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I just meant that's fine to come back in the future if you want. Tyrenius 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Karakure

Isn't the product actually named Kurkure?

My RfA

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your support on my recent Request for Adminship, despite the reasonable concerns raised by other editors. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address the concerns raised by the opposing !voters before running again. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks!

-- RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Yoga controversy

Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I would like to take you up on the offer of mediation on Arabs of Khuzestan and also the related Politics of Khuzestan articles.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most heated source of controversy is the number of Arabs in Khuzestan, of which there are no official figures as the Iranian census does not measure ethnicity. The CIA figure is often used, but is based on pre-Revolution data and is therefore out of date. Some users objection to my inclusion of a study by Iranian Arab writer Yusef Azizi Bani Toruf, which gives a much higher figure than the CIA estimate but some users argue is based on dubious data. I would like to see the full range of estimates, while some editors want just the lower CIA estimate. The use of Bani Turuf as a source is also disputed, with users claiming that as he is not a university academic and has an approach they consider "revisionist", he does not meet Wikipedia rules on verifiability. However, he is one of only a few people who have ever written on the history and tribes of Arabs in Khuzestan - it is hard to find other writers who have written so extensively on the subject.

Secondly, there is some sort of dispute over the inclusion of some Arab political parties in the Politics of Khuzestan, with some editors claiming that they are fringe groups and not notable. However, the ones I have listed are frequently mentioned in the media and, in fact, the regime is executing leading members of each group accusing them of terrorism. While the exact size of each group is unknown, their importance lies in the fact that they have an impact on the Arab community of Khuzestan (which is why the regime has banned them and is executing their leaders) and operation in exile is a source of tension between Tehran and Western countries.

Thirdly, there is some sort of controversy over the move of the historical section from Politics of Khuzestan to Arabs of Khuzestan - I have moved it to the talk page, hoping for discussion over this editorial dispute. To be honest, while I think the section (which I did not originally write) needs tidying up - shortening in some places, lengthening in others - I do not understand the source of dispute. I have tried to engage those who dispute this content, but they have not responded, yet they continue to revert it and have the backing of an admin.

The users who have disputed these Khuzestan articles have changed over the past few months and two have been banned from editing Iran-related articles. The users currently disputing content are User:Khorshid and User:Mardavich (who placed a POV tag on Politics of Khuzestan but has yet to raise his concerns on the talk page). The admin User:Yomangani has also reverted all my edits to Arabs of Khuzestan on Mardavich's request.

The most frustrating thing for me is that no-one is using the talk page to work out these problems and instead I am just reverted and insulted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not know if I want to become involved this again. Recently I was wikistalked and harassed by some Turkish users and received threats in my email, so I am kind of trying to avoid wiki. Anyway there are alot of problems with the Politics of Khuzestan, first of which is the title which there was no consensus for. I do not know why the closing admin claimed this when he should have closed the AFD as either "No consensus" or relisted for more discussion. Thats the first problem. Other problems include what Ahwaz says above but I dont think I was involved with the population dispute. Anyway if you read Talk:Politics of Khuzestan and Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan you can see the background of the problems. I think also User:Ali doostzadeh and User:ManiF and User:Zereshk would be good to consult because they have been involved in those articles before and more than me. But I will try to become involved here when I have gotten over this harassment incidents. Khorshid 03:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that this is dispute is unrelated to any harassment Khorshid may be facing in relation to articles related to Turks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I have never received emails from this person. Khorshid 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

about your question of getting Admin tools, I like that you have offered at Arabs of Khuzestan to mediate the discussions, if you need help just ask. A quick look at you edits I can see you are participating in areas that they like to see with candidates. At the moment I see two factors that would be a negative if you were to nominate the first is time you only been here since August theres a preference for editors to have been around longer (6 months+) so they can judge your actions. The other and more significant at rfa is that you only have 200 odd edits again this would been seen as lack of experience, some editors specify that minimum of 1000 edits is required. The others like to see that you've contributed to a featured article. here are what some editors are looking for, note that this isnt necessarily accurate yet its still a good place to understand whats other editors are looking for.

If at any time you need help just drop a note on my talk page and I'll respond. Gnangarra 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag on Stephen Joyce

I've responded to your merge suggestion at Talk:Stephen Joyce. Chick Bowen 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]