User talk:950CMR

950CMR, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Thanks larry 950CMR (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2021 (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 Talk:Bharata Khanda, 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. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Should have been used POV Nonsense Or Bias Nonsense for tte 950CMR (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

For the edit summary * 950CMR (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And that wasn't really rm considering i did it on a mistake not intensionally tho 950CMR (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions alert
--RexxS (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of impolite vernacular
With reference to your comment on Talk:Shambuka, please have a read of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The use of pejoratives is unencyclopaedic and against common courtesy. Avindra talk 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've deduced that you hold some anti-intellectual opinions (e.g., re: Brahmins and liberalism). In which case I suggest referring to Wikipedia:Purpose and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Avindra talk 03:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok sure but i got angry because he was saying some stupid stuff like Wikipedia supports casteism 950CMR (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

He was saying that Wikipedia supports casteism because Wikipedia says that it's a interpretation and that shambaku is a fictionary character it's politically biased and itself stupid to say Wikipedia is biased when many scholars agree that shambaku was a fictional character 950CMR (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand it can be frustrating. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia has some advice: "However, as with all reference works, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased." Generally, Wikipedia:Be bold (i.e., fix it yourself), and use talk pages to surface discussions. Avindra  talk 18:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The References in the interpolation section are scholary works there are biased airtcles like Hinduism and other religions that needs work everyone can edit Wikipedia but they need scholarly citations to do so unpopular airtcles doesn't get that much attention or people with less knowledge about that airtcle too only most popular airtcles gets noticed this the reason why people think Wikipedia is unreliable however most of them don't know how to check citations or how to check if that source is scholarly if i wanted a scholary work i would get a book by a scholar or from Google scholar 950CMR (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Quality and coverage of subjects will depend on the number of people interested. And yes, Wikipedia is actually more reliable than some are willing to give credit. As you said, it is possible to glean this from reading the citations. Avindra talk 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

These type of users makes Wikipedia like a bad place Wikipedia has been said to be hindu phobic by neo hindus like or some conspiracy channels like string when Wikipedia is biased towards Hinduism in the Hinduism and other religions airtcle 950CMR (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)