User talk:83.104.51.74

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:


 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
 * When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~&#126;). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Questions, ask me on my Talk page, or type   on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. CWC 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I severely disagree with the idea of listing university rankings for ~20 years across discontinued rankings. Users want concurrent, fast info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.244.161 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

References for university league tables
Hi there. I notice that you've recently been a range of rankings to articles on British universities. Would it be possible for you to add citations for all of the currently unreferenced figures? I mean, you must have a source yourself, to have included them.

Per WP:V, these numbers need sourcing so that these can be verified. I'm sure you've been striving to keep the numbers accurate, but even some of the cited figures are occasionally wrong. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct any typo's you spot, and let me know, as they're probably down to cut'n'paste errors at this end (while pasting in references). As to sources:

The full "Guardian", "Sunday Times", "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" history can be obtained by following the references. OCR or cut-n paste into a spreadsheet and check away.

Note: The pre 2003 Guardian rankings are based on teaching standards e.g. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/unitable/0,11985,723214,00.html

I've noticed a few differences between "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" rankings (In 2009 it's the sort order were the scores tie e.g http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=6524 vs  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/the-main-league-table-2009-813839.html), Currently double checking 2008. Also I've spotted two editions of the same Guardian table, one has a few of the newer institutions missing, so the Ranks differ, but the scores are the same e.g. the 2004 book, printed 2003, is missing Oxford Brookes and Westminster, but they can be seen in the on-line table for the year, and the Telegraph unibigpic.jpg image below.

For "The Times Good University", were you can't source an on-line copy, pick one up in paper format (Details on this page). Generally a non current copy can be obtained for £2.00, from a charity shop, or £0.01 + p&p from Amazon. From "1998" each guide details the previous years / publication's rank.

If you have the time the original paper's can be found on-line e.g.


 * http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/main.asp
 * http://www.archive.org/index.php

Note:
 * The Times archive can work out expensive, The Guide / Tables are serialised over several days / articles. It all started in October 2002, second edition May 2003....
 * The "Newstext" site will only return a complete set of search results once you have signed in / have credit.
 * The Title year is generally the published year + 1. With the exception of 2000-1, were the same Times table can be found with both titles.
 * A number of bodies have scanned copies of the historic league tables out on the web e.g. Telegraph table of tables 2003 (references previous years tables): http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~gormar/Other/unibigpic.jpg but the title year or even publication may not be correct, need to cross reference a section of the ranks / scroes to a reliable source.
 * See League tables of British universities

Sign your postings
First, when you post any comment on a talk page, like this, please sign your posting with four tildes: ~. Also, please do not put your comments in the middle of a posting by someone else, since that makes it look like they made the comment rather than you. It is best to start a new section when you are starting a new discussion. Second, why are you complaining in mid-April about an edit from January 4 ???? I did not originally add the "citation needed" templates. In fact I removed them, then re-added them, since a lot of unreferenced claims were being made. A wikilink to another Wikipedia article is not a "reference" since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, and thre is nothing to make sure that each claim in a summary like this is supported by references in the other article linked to. Both articles are likely to be in a continual state of flux, independent of the other. Each article should have reliable sources to support controversial claims, especially about disputed priority of invention.Thirs, please provide a link to the posting you are talking about, like I did above, so the other person does not have to waste a lot of time paging back through all the edits to get to the one under discussion. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Edison (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits
toolserver.org

September 2012
Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Scoto-Norman, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jschnur (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Undone: "Scoto-Saxon" appears in the same OED 'scoto-' etymology referenced earlier --83.104.51.74 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Content removed
We do realize that the person now using this IP, who receives this message, may not be the person who posted the content. We apologize for any confusion this may cause; we are required to give this notice and have no other means of attempting to reach the contributor.

Sincerely, Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

< <  Removed  >  >

Just spotted your message, that material was originally posted by a different IP e.g.

Difference between revisions -Revision as of 11:27, 11 June 2009 -  87.194.84.46

I did revert some vandalism to the content in 2010, but haven't touched the page since, so not the source of the 2013 content your DMCA takedown request refers to:

Difference between revisions - Revision as of 16:00, 27 March 2010

83.104.51.74 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but the notice I was asked to provide users of your IP address relates to the addition of the original content, here: . :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but looking more closely at it, I see that all you added there was a list of books. So I do need to go back to the drawing board and apologies for misidentification. You would be welcome to remove the notice anyway, but please feel free to do so. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pruned more than removed 83.104.51.74 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Vikings (TV series), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

test

 * }

GCSE / CSE / O-Level / Grade inflation ....
Hey Buddy,

This entire mutual edit deleting and restoring is starting to get on my nerves and I am sure it is also getting on your nerves as well. Drop me an e-mail @ charly.goaler@outlook.com and we can discuss because otherwise we either get mad or banned for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.136.150 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a section to your talk page earlier, listing the issues I have with your edits ( User_talk:83.77.136.150 ) but to duplicate them here:

Please stop removing quoted and cited text from the OECD and Department of Education, and replacing it with factually incorrect opinion. Please read the reliability and sources pages linked above before continuing. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI:
 * However ever many times you hit revert there will still only be 10 years, not 20, between 1996 and 2006, you can verify that one on your fingers, no toes required..
 * The figures in the table I'm building: English O-Level and CSE Mathematics entrants 1977-9 are for years 1977, 1978 and 1979 (those little blue numbers after by title will take you to a LINK with the original numbers in), please leave the years alone.
 * The figures for 8+ passes, in another little table I'm building "Percentage of School-Leavers in England obtaining 'n' O-level(A-C) or CSE grade 1 pass", are: 4.5 and 4.7 - again follow the magic blue numbers to the source, and leave the numbers alone.
 * The first GCSE awards were in June 1988, so there is no pre 1988.
 * The number of subjects, syllabus content, assessment, ..... have changed considerably since those proposed in 1986, the number of subjects has increased from the ~33 in 1998, to over 120 in the list you keep removing the formatting from, the A* was introduced in 1994, controlled assessment expanded..... So please stop removing the content i'm adding, and replacing it with a "nothing changes".
 * The GCSE in not norm-referenced, so any comparison with similar awards will only be valid for the year the data was compared, in this case the comparisons were made in: 1988 and 1994.
 * There are approximately 800,000 pupils in each GCSE cohort, not 6 million, please stop replacing the count of exam scripts with the word candidates.
 * Also please stop deleting the "See also" sections, that link to other variants of the qualification.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course there was "Pre-1988". You can't talk about the introduction of the GCSE without considering the "Common Exam at 16+". Have a read of https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MGagBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21 for some background.
 * Of course the GCSE is not norm-referenced. The grade boundaries are determined by a meeting of examiners and subject specialists where they agree that scripts on either side of the grade boundary are representative of the work of candidates at that grade level in previous years. It is precisely for that reason that comparisons are valid across different years or different cohorts (as in the case of tiered exams).
 * Since each exam may have multiple scripts, it is just as incorrect to label the 6 million as "exam scripts". The number you are looking at is actually the count of entries.
 * Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There were many, many years pre 1988, around 13.5 billion, but there weren't any GCSEs awarded prior to June 1988, It was all O-levels, CSE's, RSA stage II's, C&G, Pitman certificates,.....;)
 * On the Norm referencing there's a current, well a month old Guardian article with Edexcel, and it appears that GCSE's are now partially norm-referenced. Since 2012 they are only permitted to vary the percentage obtaining any particular grade by less than 1%, from the previous year.
 * I'm happy with either entries or exam scripts, entries is shorter, just not: awards, pupils, students, children, candidates....  (will make the change)
 * Oh, found User:Supervisor635 had also stripped the dates them the Scottish and Irish education pages, via IP: 85.3.139.236
 * Thanks for spotting / correcting those typos.
 * 83.104.51.74 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there were no GCSEs awarded prior to 1988 - although we did a considerable amount of testing on trial syllabuses prior to the first exams. The "Common Exam at 16+" was examined in the years before 1988, although the award was validated by the CSE and O level boards jointly and awarded separately by each as appropriate. It was the existence of that collaborative project that enabled the GCSE to be introduced so rapidly, making use of the structures already set up between the boards. The only GCSE that I am aware of that was completely criterion referenced was the first MEG Computer Studies exam, where each exam paper was divided into sections directly related to each grade. A candidate had to reach a "hurdle" to pass a section, and the highest section passed was the grade achieved for that paper. The grades for each component were then amalgamated to produce the overall grade awarded. It didn't prove popular and reverted to a more traditional scheme of assessment after a few years. The traditional scheme was, as you say, essentially norm referenced (if I remember correctly, at the B/C, D/E and G/U boundaries originally), but a variation of more than a few percent in the proportion of any grade from the previous year triggered a review that had to be sufficiently rigorous to stand scrutiny from SEAC, and it quite often resulted in a "cap" on variation. Because the judgement was delegated to a relatively small group, albeit highly experienced, there was always the possibility of standards drift. For those reasons, the GCSE could never be said to be completely criterion referenced.
 * Thanks for keeping your eyes on the date-stripping vandalism. It's a regular occurrence with socks or IPs operated by the same person: always a minor change along with mass removal of dates and an innocuous edit summary. We just have to keep reverting it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity do you know how candidates for the Common Exam trials were selected? I ask as I've had a look at the stat's and the percentage obtaining the O-Level grades are well below those awarded via a straight O-Level (by the same GCE board in the same year), and as I understand it the exams were limited to the subset of the syllabus that was common to both the O-level and CSE. Was it the case that borderline pupils were volunteered ?
 * Oh I stumbled across the original MEG Computer Studies syllabus and the sample paper a few weeks back, that takes me back.
 * 83.104.51.74 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 83.104.51.74 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Dyer's Brirth, education, and career in India / the British Indian army, minus a few years in Ireland, Burmah, and Persia, are detailed and cited in the article. Other than a period of instruction at Sandhurst, he's not recorded as having lived in Britain, prior to his Exile, or anywhere other than British India 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at William de Brus, 3rd Lord of Annandale, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Slavery in India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, the repeated removal of the paragraphs on the regulation, and prohibition of slavery, by User:Highpeaks35 are unhelpful, e.g. or . The user does not utilise the Articles talk page, and Any attempt to discuss their behaviour on their talk own page is near instantly blanked, e.g., and this is not an isolated incidents, e.g. , See here: [] 83.104.51.74 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not the user talk page, but the article's talk page is where you need to discuss. You can ping the user by writing . You need to justify your edit by providing policy-based rationale, or the based on the reliable sources you are using.
 * When you make many edits in a row, and one of them is problematic, all the edits may get reverted. If so, you can ask on the talk page, which edit was problematic, and once known, reistate the remaining edits.
 * If you need to make many contentious edits, you will be better off registering an account. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, if you happen to look at say the Talk:Slavery in India page, you’ll note my participation, even adding / replying to your input, but I can’t see any input from User:Highpeaks35, also if you spare a few min’s to review what the user removed, reliable cited sources, often with dates, for say the vague, and incited, ‘’’“in ancient times”’’k, which isn’t helpful, when approximate dates for say verse 8.415 of the Manusmriti are available 83.104.51.74 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * I removed your edit replacing "ancient" with Manu verse 8.415 because the two don't have anything to do with each other. Neither did any source mention any such thing. Did it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Manu is a two millennia old work, that amongst many other things codifies slavery, and has several known, and dated commentaries, e.g., not to mention forming the basis of the 1773 Hindu Law, and later that of the Republic of India, while “ancient times” is essentially meaningless, nor is my referencing the Manu Original research. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to stick to what the reliable sources say, and not add your own interpretations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you please identify which one of the cited sources you feel is unreliable? 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Slavery in India 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * IP, please stop. You can't use a translation from a website of a religious book and expect it to meet WP:RS. We need scholarly sources which validate a clear opinion. Kindly provide sources. We are all here to help. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC))


 * The citation is: ‘’Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, by Ganganatha Jha, 1920, 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550’’, that i’ve Linked to a preview, as out of copyright, given it handily contains the vulgate. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, did that meet WP:RS? "by Ganganatha Jha, 1920" - please advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * It’s a published work, has been since 1920, reprinted, available (including on Amazon), by a respected academic Ganganath Jha, .... just go down the list, and find a box it dosen’t Tick. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:HISTRS. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * FYI: ‘’’D lit’’’ is synonymous with a PhD, so do you want to re-read his bio, and see if you still don’t regard Ganganath Jha as qualified to publish a translation, and commentary on a Sanskrit work? 83.104.51.74 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Something that was published almost 100 years ago does not qualify. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * The Manusmriti was created two thousand years ago, and since Jones collected various versions, and widely published a translation, in 1774, it hasn’t changed much, the 1920 re-translation, and commentary on the 2000 year old work, has been reprinted a number of times, and is still available on Amazon, as are variants of Johnson’s 1755 English dictionary, the 1611 King James Bible, and so on. It’s only if a later work contradicts the original, that the particular rule you’re quoting comes into play, which is explained in the policy. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not make the rules. I suggest you post in WP:India and get other editors to pitch in. Good luck, happy editing. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Please at least attempt to read, understand, and follow the rules made to maintain the accuracy of the site. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Source
What is your source for this edit []?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add (on further thought) that you should not alter cited text without providing an alternative cite (As you seem to have done, reliability of sources aside this was wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The "8.415 of the Manusmriti" is the name of a Legal work, and the 8.415 is the paragraph / or verse, in itself being a citation, and there's a couple of citations in the Regulation and prohibition section to non primary commentaries on the work, while the Hindu Law page also offers a fair bit on the work with citations. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by it is "the name of a Legal work"? Can you provide a full citation for it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you could start with the two cited translations you removed the reference from the Slavery in India page (See page history), including Jha's, discussed a few paragraphs above, by a fan of yours, if not there are several other editions cited on the Manusmriti page, and if still not happy Google Books / Amazon can offer a few more editions. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk • contribs)
 * I am sorry, IP. You have not answered my question. What do you mean by "Legal work"? Which Legal work are you talking of? Straight answer please! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it a legal work? Can you provide a source for that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources cited in the Manusmriti article appear to make that assertion, so i’ll stick with the learned sources, rather than offer my own opinion, as that would likely fail the OR test, e.g. https://archive.org/details/AnIntroductionToHinduismSeeTantraWesternPhilosophyAscetismFoldersGavinFloodOUP/page/n70 If you hold a differing view, that you can find a reliable source to support, feel free to reply. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep that source seems to say it is law.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)