User talk:योजनबुद्ध

AFD !vote
Hi योजनबुद्ध,

When !voting on AFDs please keep it short and sweet, and to the point,

I've removed your !vote as no one is ever going to read it and it simply takes up a huge amount of the page,

By all means please !vote but please keep it short, sweet and to the point,

Thanks and Happy Editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But my dear Davey, I do believe it was to the point, as the accusations made for speedy deletions and consensus being unjustly formed hand not viewed the said points or history, they seemed to be totally ignorant of it. Did you have chance to read the text yourself?
 * I'll put the full text here and create and abridgement for the article itself if these are indeed the rules. But I feel, the subject when faced with such unfair deletion and judgements against it's notability, has much detail to be discussed so needs to be addressed too. People asking for speedy deletion need to be able to do their research no matter how long it is, or else they have no right to ask for speedy deletion. Or else it's most unfair consensus towards vandalism leaning towards the sides of ignorance and prejudices by those pushing for delating unique or unusual information that is indeed notable by wikipedia's own guidelines.


 * The full text I shall paste for you too at read here, for it's important to know if you do care to make fair judgement on the matter:

Speedy Keep My Dear Magog the Ogre, Thank for bringing up your concerns regarding the article. It’s good to know that wikipedia is place of great minds working together too keep the knowledge bright and alight, thats why really really like wikipedia, a place of discussion and true justice. I believe though that in this case you need not have concern. As the article and subject I believe are indeed notable and have merit. Please allow to cordially explain. The subject is I feel within the notability criteria of wikipedia and so are the claims based on the following, Yes I know the following is long, but claims and information of this nature can seldom be brief. Here we go.

1.)"I have severe doubts about the notability of the subject." Can you please clarify on what specific grounds you may feel the subject is not a notable addition? After all I believe by the guidelines “determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.” Further, "common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” There are I believe many articles on the subject from different and independent sources. Some of these are even catalogued on a website pertaining to subject: http://www.ankitlove.org/nick-cannon/

Here is a list of a just a few citations of independent nature that pertain to the subject: Dastur-Arsiwala, Nicole (7 April 2013). "Beethoven with a Touch of Disco". Daily News and Analysis (Diligent Media Corporation). Retrieved 30 June 2013. Newstead, Sophie-Jane (23 November 2013). "Interview: ANKIT LOVE Editor-In-Chief of new Science / Fashion publication Mist Magazine". Joyzine. Retrieved 21 January 2014. Lauziniece, Laura (21 February 2012). "Latviešu Modele – MTV klipa zvaigzne (Latvian Model – star of MTV video) (page 15)". Privātā Dzīve (Santa). Anderson, Emily (1 April 2013). "How I got here (page 98)". Spirit & Destiny (Yellow News).

Apart from his own achievements the subject is also the son of a public and influential political and legal figure in India Kunwar Bhim Singh, and thus an ancestor of General Zorwar Singh of the Dogra Rajput dynasty, there are in links to these pages and their very own citations that support the notability of that history.

The subject is indeed founder of a foundation to support humanitarian and scientific causes it's registration number is 8926971 as listed at the bottom of the foundation's website: http://ankitlove.org And you can search for it here as it appears in the search of the Companies House https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company

2.)"Backed by dead links." This is now an older article that has been around for a few years since around 2012 I believe, some of the links do not survive so long on the internet unfortunately, though the last retrieved dates are documented. But still many of the link do work fine indeed, I don’t think links simply dying out is a fair assessment of speedy deletion when there are also sources that have been in print including the DNA newspaper of India, the PDF spread of which can be read, and also the fact the subject co-founded a in print magazine called BRIC magazine http://bricmagazine.co.uk and further he was the founding Editor-in-Chief of the digital magazine Mist http://mistmag.com

Further links go to his music video on MTV and VH1 http://www.vh1.com/video/ankit-love/717077/beethoven-burst.jhtml (only works in the USA as that's the VH1 franchise the video was on)

All these would indeed be points of notability I believe. Perhaps the subject is exceptional or unusual or even unbelievable to most but this is not criteria against notability, nor is it cause for speed deletion for an article that has been on wikipedia for years.

3.) "Not in the source at all." I believe much of the article is appropriately sourced. Do you have exact reference to what is not sourced, perhaps citations need or something similar would have been the more apporipirate first step as opposed to rushing to speed deletion of this subject. However I believe that there is this guideline to consider too: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.”

4.)"Backed by non-reliable sources." Could specify which sources you feel are non-reilble and as to which policy that pertains please?

5.)"A select few appear in a few publications." I believe that even if a few do appear in publication and that of the family of the subject too, then that would weigh in the favour of notability.

6.)"To boot, we have numerous fantastical claims..." My dear Administrator first of all indeed there were errors of standard spellings in that sentence that have been now corrected, I appreciate you bringing them to attention.

However, fantastical would be perhaps your opinion, can you please justify what you source or history you reference to label the claims as fantastical? They maybe numerous if that is the history and heritage, well that how it is. Perhaps judgement on fantastical is more relative to individuals, fantastical to one maybe normal to another. And so perhaps this is not the most appropriate course to ascertain the facts and histories that subject makes his claims upon. And so perhaps no the appropriate basis to judge notability by.

As the claims I believe are based on real recorded history one that may not be so well known or popular in the West, but history it is none the less and which is indeed in part covered on Wikipedia already for example pages on the subjects: Father, Kunwar Bhim Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhim_Singh_(politician) His ancestor, General Zorwar Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorawar_Singh_Kahluria And his hence clan, the Dogra Dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty All already on wikipedia. It’s the history of the region and the subject is a part of it. The subject did not choose his history, nor the laws that governed him.

And there are a complex plethora of legal points that have plagued the region of northern India for decades. Have you my dear Magog clearly studied and understand the implications and history of Article 370? There is actually a wikipedia page on the subject to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370

And there is also the Instrument of Accession and it's circumstances to review also now on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)

You see the subject of the article has person and direct relation to all of these happenings through clearly his fathers side, and so I believe the subject's case indeed has notable inclusion of encyclopaedic nature.

Once again the article is clear to point to these are “claims,” made by the claimant and presented as such. No where in the article is it written that anybody has confirmed such claim. But it is a claim of historical and legal value none the less, based on heritage, law and history though yet not histories so so well known in the West. But this should not automatically classify the article for speedy deletion. After all this is perhaps one of the purposes of wikipedia to bring to light such unknown and notable subjects.

Further there are many articles on claimants and Pretenders to the thrones on wikipedia already based on heritage and history and dynasty. There may even be more then one claimant to any one throne in matters as such, this once again I believe is not grounds against notability. In fact, the claims, histories and legal points may add more notability to the subject for encyclopaedic inclusion. Please also see this link to many current claimants and pretenders on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_pretenders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender

Perhaps all pretenders and claimants can be classified as somewhat fantastical by people who don't believe in their claims, but this is not I believe criteria in itself criteria for speedy deletion, or lack of notability. In fact this is now a article in progress to which appropriate points or counter claims should be added to. To potentially even discredit the claims and histories referenced by the claimant as long as they can be sourced.

7.)"In short, this article is nothing but a poorly written advertisement."

Perhaps the article seems weighed in the positive spectrum in relation to the subject in your views my Dear Magog, but as with all wikipeida articles they are works in progress and if an when the research is done to bring out the negatives of the subject well then they must be added to the article as well. But till then the statement you have made is more an opinion then fact, of course you are entitled to opinion and it can be the root to search for facts of course. But not necessarily the right criteria for speedy deletion.

In fact it would appear that the article does seem to be written with an encyclopaedic tone. Further a lack of negative criticism does not in it self constitute a lack of notability, or even just criteria for speedy deletion for that matter.

So I feel based on articles, media exposure, family histories here, documents and history of the region the article and subject are indeed notable. And should be kept, for the benefit of wikipedia and it's wealth and quest for knowledge and as support of potentially great untold histories of our world.

While I can see from your perspective that you feel the claims in the article to be fantastical there is still no suggestion that they are not based on substantial history, law and heritage. And fantastical can still mean true or certainly up for debate. And then they are of course indeed notable. If any counter claim exists or their is any criticism to the claim then of course this should be added to the article once found, this would make a lot more sense then to blindly delete it based potentially on prejudices and opinions without the proper and deep research and understanding these issues call for.


 * I thank for your time, and hope you may be able to see the points I have put forward. All the best. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * योजनबुद्ध I apsolutely appreciate you want to address every concern there I completely understand - But you need to post it alot shorter,


 * No one's going to read it and I'm 100% sure the closing admin will simply scroll down and not even glance at it so thus basically ignores your !vote entirely,


 * Please don't take it personally - I have no issue with you or your !vote - It's just the length that's my concern :)
 * Thanks and Happy Editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok my Dear Davey, I understand, thank you for making me aware of this. I truly appreciate it. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of removing the !vote altogether, you should have put it in a collapsible box using Collapse. SD0001 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Rather annoyingly I never even thought about it yet managed to collapse the above, Meh what's done's done. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ankit Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latvian. 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) 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
This is your only warning; if you upload a blatantly unencyclopedic image again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Uploading pictures of *anyone's* passport is completely inappropriate. '' JBH (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Jbhunley, apologies for that. Can you please let me know what qualifies as an unencyclopedic image? I felt that the images were of encyclopaedic in nature. I don't mean to offend, but perhaps a discussion would be in order before making a judgement. thank you for your understanding. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not upload images containing personal information again, or you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Ankit Love, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Your additions make the article inappropriate for Wikipedia. And make unsupported claims about a living person. They are so outlandish as to be potentially defamatory.'' JBH (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ankit Love
Please discuss on Talk:Ankit Love before re-re-reverting. Thank you. JBH (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Your recent editing history at Ankit Love 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.It has not gone unnoticed that you also reverted using the IP . Favonian (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Favonian, This is not my IP address, I am based in London. I did not do that revert. Please show me evidence to my you assume that is my IP address. There may be many observers to this discussion. Thank for your time. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
JBH (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Favonian, This is not my IP address, I am based in London. I did not do that revert. Please show me evidence to my you assume that is my IP address. There may be many observers to this discussion. Thank for your time. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing at Ankit Love, including BLP issues, dubious sources etc. I have blocked until the ending time of the AfD - the article can be discussed again then, but restoring that swathe of material without discussion WILL result in another block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A note
The article was not blanked -- blanking is the removal of everything from the page. Also, please stay cool when editing. Thank you. &mdash;George8211 / T 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello, योजनबुद्ध,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)