User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2011/May

Thanks for the adoption
Hi Charles,

Thanks for the same.

The reasons of irrelevance is incorrect in as much as the information there is is relevant to the topic. Some of it may not have met the wiki standards of referencing. In that case it is better option to provide a rider saying citation is need rather than wiping out the contribution of so many editors over the years, because what has been stated there is a part of the generally accepted faith and not original research. This is more a example of disruptive editing.

The sole purpose of the editor has been to introduce a factually incorrect information, quoting sources in the most misleading way and deleting information relevant to proving that the Thengalai has been the mainstream faith with more than 71 of the 108 temples following that cult.

The Thenkalai vs Vadagalai has been such a bitter dispute especially only in the last two three hundred years, with vadagalais trying to take control of the administration ( documented in the various source book referred).

Also he has intentionally confused the two terms of Thenkalai Sampradhyaam also known as SriVaishnava Sampradhaya where the followers are worshipers of Vishnu ( such as Christians worship Christ and Buddisht follow Buddha), cutting across caste lines,who follow the worship in local language tamil and have slightly different interpretations on philosophy with that of Thenkalai Iyyengars who are Brahmins following Thengalai Sampradhya. The term Srivaishnavas is inclusive of brahmin. All srivaishnavas wear the caste mark called thiruman irrespective of they are brahmin or not, it is the sacred thread and other brahminical rituals that do so the distinction.Even the source books used by the renegade editor refer to other caste groups as Thengalai non brahmins (to distinguish them from the same thiruman wearing Thengalai Brahmins who wear the sacred thread.

If the Thengalais have been evolved by admixture of lower caste and brahmins how come they control most of the temples in Vaishnava sect, especially given control brahmins priests have had over temples and relgious instituions in South India.

I can prove it in the talk pages in detail point by point with references. The point is the article on Iyengar(ethnic section) and Thenkalai have been corrupted and needs to be fixed.

My humble opinion here is to roll it back to Jan4 2011 version, and work with providing references, remove the confusion between the Thenkalai Sampradhaya or Srivaishnava and Thenkalai Brahmins. The new additions can be added with appropriate weightage to the sources and Point of view. (Because if just one source takes an extreme view and provide unsubstantiated arguments it has to be made out to be a extreme view point).

I want to record this in the talk page of both Thenkalai and fix that first and then work towards fixing the anomalies in the ethnic section in Iyengars.

Please advice me if I am following the wiki guidelines by doing so. Ramanuja 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs)
 * Yes. That sounds like an excellent plan. If reliable references are included the material will not be deleted, or if it is action will be taken against the deleter. Oh and please sign your talk page posts by clicking the pen-like symbol at the top of the edit window.--Charles (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You again
Hello, I was just wondering how come you always seem to find anything that I created that's nominated for deletion and support it. What did I do to you that you evidently hate me so much? Have you got an explanation? &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not hate you. Do not take it personally. It is just that the stuff you are writing does not meet Wikipedia standards. Bus routes are rarely notable and lists of such routes compiled from primary sources, e. g. bus timetables, are original research as well as being non-notable. Original research is not allowed here. I advise you to find something legitamate to do here, or else to do the lists elsewhere, because they will most likely be deleted sooner or later.--Charles (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My very first page, has been fine for 1 year 10.5 months now. How do you think lists of bus routes in large cities e.g. London, New York were created if not by original research? If I do the lists anywhere else, who will find them? What do you mean by legitimate? Boring stuff, like dull articles? &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is never a good argument. Each article has to be notable in its own right. You need to read WP:NOTGUIDE and you need to stop adding time tables to transport articles as it is totally unencyclopedic and is just going too far.--Charles (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think you realised, 'Timetable' is the name of the section. All it has in it is the frequencies and first and last buses. It does not state every single bus of every day - just in case that is the definition of timetable. Plus, I am not saying that it shoud stay for the reason that other similar articles exist, but that was an answer to your previous statement 'they will get deleted sooner or later'. That was an example of a seemingly succesful page, that has not been deleted 'sooner or later'. And also, what experience have you actually got with buses (apart from possibly commuting on them)? &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting maintenance tags
I have resolved the problem, as I have written in the edit summary, there already are vaild references (10 of them). I would also appreciate you actually reading and reply to my previous message, as I would quite like to know what experience you have in the area of public transport. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not resolved the problem. None of the references are reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia. They are all primary sources. Whether I have any experience in public transport is not relevant to sourcing and notability.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe your experience with buses doesn't matter with notability, but it sure does matter when you want to make substantial edits to the page (e.g. deleting sections). By this I assume, you have no experience with public transport, so I would like to ask you to not edit the page substantially. And also, I would suggest you don't 'spy' on what I am doing or I will have to contact other administrators about you. 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still expecting an answer to my previous message. Stop sending me messages with removing maintenance tags, neither of them should be there, you don't know the meaning of 'original research' and you're the one who should get blocked.&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deschner
See the article on Deschner if you want a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.62.4 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the reference needed to be added to the article by you. As that is clearly not the reason Dawkins came to prominence your statement was factually incorrect anyway.--Charles (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have taken my sarcastic parody seriously. I will have to stop using sarcasm, as it goes over your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at Wikiquette_alerts
has posted a complaint about you at Wikiquette_alerts. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip-off Bob. I am not exactly quaking in my boots over it. I have been telling the kid he should take his bus routes elsewhere for a while now and Wikia sounds like a good alternative.--Charles (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not very polite calling me 'the kid' is it? And you should start worrying, because I haven't finished about this yet. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes a lot more than you to worry me. Have you seen UK Transport Wiki? It looks an ideal place to use your skill and enthusiasm without pissing off grown-up editors here.--Charles (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't be put off and I will get help with this. Yes I have seen UK Transport Wiki and it is not popular enough, so it would be just a waste of time. And I'm not worried about pissing-off grown-ups, I don't mind them getting annoyed. By the way, you do know it's polite to answer, don't you? Well, I'm expecting one Adam mugliston  Talk  20:48 & 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"...pissing off grown-up editors" is uncalled for and insulting. Please try to talk to other editors in a more civil tone, especially the more inexperienced ones.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor note: "Unexplained deletion" in Conservapedia
Just as a side note: The deletion of that sentence had been explicitly suggested on the talk page. I'm not questioning your revert itself (it's easy to justify at this time), but the revert comment struck me as a bit off (or overly strict if you apply it only to the lack of that user's edit comment) in my eyes. Just noting since I was feeling chatty, not trying to start some sort of debate or discussion. =P Have a nice day! --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If people left edit summaries such misunderstandings would not arise and I am not going to check out the talk page for every unexplained deletion. Life is too short for that. Have a nice day yourself!--Charles (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)