User talk:Achowat/Archive 2

The Source is not perfect for Posting such a Dirty story against "Mohini" (an Incarnation of Vishnu)
'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' is a Vaishnava Literature praising 'Vishnu' and his Incranations. .I went through 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana'. .It has 4 Sections. .'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' consists of 4 Parts and 32 Chapters. .All the Chapters are provided in the below site. .No such 'Indecent Story' occurs in 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana'. . . And the Author itself is an American Feminist who cites it without any proof. .Should an American Book be used to Post Indecent Articles against Hinduism ??? . If there was an Good source, then it would not have been a problem. .For example Cite the Translation of 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' as a source. .Please never post, what some 'Anti-Hindu' people write in their Book as a Source. .Its a Request. . . If u can find a Credible source, then im okay with that Article. .But if not, please remove that piece of Article which is an Insult to Hindu Gods. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.112.108 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, in regards to 'insulting Hindu Gods', Wikipedia is not censored and, as such, even insulting information (if encyclopedic) should be included. In regards to the pro-Western bias, I'd point to the article concerning the potential homosexuality of Jesus. I am not arguing that the information is true, notable, verifiable, or encyclopedic, only that such wholesale removal of content should be done with Consensus. I, again, suggest making your arguments on the articles Talk Page and building a consensus there. If you are right, and I have a feeling you are, it seems unlikely that consensus would be difficult to build. -Achowat (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Source is not perfect for Posting such a Dirty story against "Mohini" (an Incarnation of Vishnu) Continued
SOURCE for the Summaries of 32 Complete Chapters of 'BRAHMA VAIVARTA PURANA'. .Please go through all the Chapters and show me where such a Story Arises ?? . http://www.astrojyoti.com/brahmavaivartapurana.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.112.108 (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of this page
What is this page? Why is this on wikipedia? This is not an encyclopedia page! Why does none of this make sense? I thought Wikipedia had strict standards about pages? Can I just start making pages about anything now? I don't think that's a good idea. This page should not be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to have a real, constructive discussion on the merits of the page, I'll do that. But if you're just going to spout off nonsense and over-react, you'll find no one to build a consensus with. -Achowat (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this page notable? You were telling me about notable earlier.  Why is there a wikipedia page about "The Source is not perfect for Posting such a Dirty story against "Mohini"" and The Source is not perfect for Posting such a Dirty story against "Mohini" (an Incarnation of Vishnu) Continued"?  That make no sense?  How does this page meet each notability guideline?75.42.222.149 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a User Talk page, and as such, has its own guidelines. -Achowat (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read that, everything makes more sense. Apologies for the confusion.75.42.222.149 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Irrelevent (sic) pop culture"?
So a pop culture reference about a [pop culture subject] is now deemed "irrelevent"? Your logic is flawed. And so is your spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.59.254 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but irrelevant pop culture is. -Achowat (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work
Hiya Achowat. I see you're doing sterling work on vandal-patrolling.

Just one thing though - in this revert, you accidentally restored a revision which a different IP had also vandalised. Ah well, it happens! Trafford09 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be on the look-out for 'Double IP Vandalism', where two different vandals attack the same page successively (and therefore Rollback only reverts the most recent attack. Again, thank you. -Achowat (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great - cheers (I've done it myself, before now!). Trafford09 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Youre a vandalist
if you dont know anything about an article stop keeping ppl from correcting and enhancing it by just undo it all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.212.87.231 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your concerns on your Talk Page. -Achowat (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject United States
I just wanted to say welcome to the project and thanks for joining. Please let me know if you have any questions about the project or if you have any ideas about how we can make things better. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome! I had posted on the Project's Talk page about improving the Articles for the Amendments, and specifically which of the 'Good Articles' (17th and 25th) should be emulated. If I posted this in the wrong Talk, please advise. Otherwise, it's great to help improving on the Wikipedia presence of my homeland. -Achowat (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the reverts you make
The edits made by you for reverting an IP for the article 7aum Arivu were not constructive and has been reverted. And plus, the IP had given an edit summary to describe the changes he had made. Per WP:ROLLBACK, you should not have used that feature for reverting. He is absolutely right, the gross is not sourced at all. And please assume good faith before doing any more reverts if needed. Guess the hoard of vandals is getting on our nerves. So I can't blame anyone right now. :D  X.One   SOS  15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge. A little too much Vandal-fighting gets to a man. I'm going to take a self-imposed Vandal-fighting Wikibreak and purge the negative energies. -Achowat (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, perhaps that would be nice. So unfortunate are the solid effects of the Wp guidelines. But its a free world anyway. So enjoy!  X.One   SOS  09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

De Zwethheul
I was quite surprised to see a Speedy Deletion request for De Zwethheul. Can you explain why you nominated this (btw, speedy is already denied)? Night of the Big Wind talk  19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My logic was based entirely on the fact that the page appears to exist only to promote the restaurant. The only pertinent information given is how many 'Stars' they were provided, and as such, fit the requirement for speedy deletion requirement for promotion. The community has determined that my sense of criteria G11 didn't apply and I will respect the communities wishes in that regard, however the exclusion of any real other information aside from the Stars they were given was my sole motivation. -Achowat (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I always find it a hard job to find the useful information between the promo and the reviews. I try to stay away from promotion as far as I can. I refuse to give details as their menu's, prices, reservations etcetera. That is why I was baffled by the nomination. On the other hand, most people regard restaurants with Michelin stars as outright notable. (I am just working on User:Night of the Big Wind/Michelin restaurants. Started with that due to two AfD's on Michelin starred restaurants.) But I like to hear suggestions about how to improve the article! Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not wont to believe that receiveing this award or that instantly makes a topic notable. And, honestly, my concerns are probably far more about the lack of any other information in the prose. Reading the three sentences provides a reader with no real information, excluding how it was rated. Not speaking Dutch myself (or more importantly, not reading Dutch) I wouldn't be able to dig through the references and find other notable information, but if it exists, it belongs on the page. If, consequently, further notable information doesn't exist, then that subject, again in my opinion, is not notable. -Achowat (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Śarabhanga
I declined the speedy delete on this as Śarabhanga is a character in an ancient Sanskrit epic. At least according to the article, which is unreferenced. Feel free to WP:PROD or WP:AFD it. --GraemeL (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. -Achowat (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: "reverted political spam" in history of US public debt.
Consider the POV of the article:

1) Reports New York Times information, without balancing it with anything from a non-left-wing source 2)  Straight reporting of claims from the Obama Administration, again without balancing it with anything from a non-left-wing-source 3) Chooses cutoff at a date that makes Republican presidents look worse than Democratic ones

Do you believe that nothing is needed to balance this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source that is more NPOV then the Times, feel free to provide it. But the following things are, in general, not acceptable in the sense of NPOV:
 * Adding unsourced speculation concerning the Debt
 * Adding 'opposing viewpoints'; two pieces of POV on opposite sides don't add up to NPOV
 * Not really in keeping with the list, but I doubt you're going to get anyone to believe that just because something is in the NYT, it is inherently biased.

-Achowat (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, on partisan political questions, the evidence for that is overwhelming. Heck, they even tried to pretend that certain rape defendants were guilty long after DNA had proved otherwise.Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk)
 * Feel free to challenge the facts, or find a source that you feel is reliable, but as it turns out it's really hard for the Times to just outright lie to people especially in regards to numbers. Again, feel free to find a contradictory source, if one exists. -Achowat (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the single most dramatic instance of NYT lies that I am aware of. We have innocent criminal defendants being framed by the DA, and the NYT supporting that DA every single step of the way.

The NYT published this, and has not retracted it to this day, despite a chorus of criticism from all over the place, and a finding from the new DA that the defendants were "innocent". I have put the NYT's central lie in boldface. Well, sure, if you ignore a time-stamped ATM videotape of the defendant at another location when the crime was supposedly occurring, you could say what the NYT said.

"that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury" -- with slipshod allusion to what he deems "[c]rucial to that portrait of the case": "Sergeant Gottlieb’s 33 pages of typed notes and 3 pages of handwritten notes."

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/times-no-harm-no-foul.html http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/wilson-and-stevenson-duke-it-out.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2006/08/witness_for_the_prosecution.htmlPreceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk)
 * First off, feel free to sign your posts by entering ~ at the end of your posts. Second, what exactly does this have to do with the History of Public Debt in the United States? -Achowat (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing with public debt. Everything with the documented unreliability of the NYT. Seriously, if you are willing to help frame three innocent criminal defendants in a high-profile case, and articles supporting the frame appear on your front page, why should you be trusted on any topic? 98.222.48.17 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but a percieved bias in one article does not instantly destroy the credibility of such an important newspaper of record. -Achowat (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Perceived bias?" Do you believe that a videotape which contradicts a version of events is merely "perceived bias?"
 * All biases are "perceived biases". It is your perception (right or wrong) that the Times acted in bad faith and reported something they knew to be false. I'm unfamiliar with the issue at hand, so I can't comment. But I've noticed you haven't addressed the central point: namely, that bias in one article does not instantly destroy the credibility of a Newspaper like the Times. -Achowat (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Recalcitrant Interdependence
Hi Achowat

You recently tagged the article Recalcitrant Interdependence as being both not notable and lacking in secondary sources. Having read the relevant information, I can understand why you did. At present the thesis is available through the university library it has also been accepted for publication. The University will be putting up some information about it on it's website in the next couple of months. I hope that you will wait and contact me before tagging this page further.

9191Aus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9191Aus (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as a general rule, I'm not going to contact you before adding the appropriate tags to a page. The page belongs to the community and the tags simply help other users realize what is absent from the Article and help them work to resolve those issues. Also, as it turns out, the university writing about a theory devised by a professor at that university doesn't fit the bill for secondary sources nor does it show the notability required for inclusion. If, and only if, third party sources talk about the subject in a way to cover Notability. -Achowat (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Peter Topping
Hello Achowat, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Topping, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not every professor wiil survive AFD but being a Professor should be enough to avoid A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Given that no professions (including college educators) are listed at WP:CSD, are there other groups of people who are, by virtue of their occupation, instantly notable enough to bypass the Speedy Deletion process? -Achowat (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there are any inherently notable occupations, but there are plenty of occupations where achieving a particular level means you are so likely to be notable that CSD would be inappropriate. Some are easy, any Olympian, anyone who has ever played for in certain sports leagues. WP:Politicians at a national level and even some sub national levels. For Academics a good rule of thumb would be professorship, there are of course notable Academics who aren't full professors and some institutions will use the title professor a tad too freely.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A useful read, thank you very much. -Achowat (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Stub tags - no date needed
Please note that the stub template does not take a date parameter. Adding it as you did for PC-Port-Forwarding just wastes the time of a stub-sorter who has to remove it. Thanks. Pam D  19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. (In fact, it will probably save me some time, too, since I won't have to add it. -Achowat (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

dont delete ever again a good song!!!
what the heck is wrong with you with the page i made called lonely heart ufo song.me and some other people want to see a wikipedia page about it.do u have a problem!!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyzzzX (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, a few things. First of all, I didn't delete the article. It still exists and was denied Speedy Deletion. Second, the inclusion guidelines for songs are simply not met with the article in its current form; it needs verifiable sources to establish notability. Feel free to add those sources, if you can find them. Third, you shouldn't phrase your response as don't delete my article, this Encyclopedia belongs to all of us and the community has built a Consensus as to what can and cannot be included. And please, try to be civil on my talk page. -Achowat (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically,It wasn't you the first guy who taged one of my articles for speedy deletion.There were some other articles that were removed at the beginning just because they wasnt very interesting or informative.are those people stupid or what??i mean i didnt do something bad or wrong.there are other pages on wikipedia that are worse than mine and they arent removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyzzzX (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be thinking about it this way. When trying to make an artcile that works all you need to remember is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are gaps, sure; there are notable subjects covered by indpendent sources the should be included, but every single song by every single musician is simply not part of that. I would heavily suggest checking out each of the links in this post to help you find ways to improve your ability to have an article stick. -Achowat (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
As always, thank you. -Achowat (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
I didnt know about that, thanxVanishingcattle (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)