User talk:Deepavali 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi, Deepavali 2014. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Hello, I'm LibertyOrDeath. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to English Bay (Vancouver) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

It seems you are a little unclear on the meaning of "bias" and "neutral point of view." Your edits here and here  do not make sense based on your edit summaries. For example, an article section having a heading of "First marriage" is not biased simply because there is not another section in the article titled "Second marriage". (If you think I'm wrong about that and you have a specific reason that you legitimately believe this introduces bias into the article as stated, and you've read the applicable Help pages on this topic, then feel free to let me know your rationale, or begin a discussion on the Talk page of that article.)

Please review the above links to learn more about this, and how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, as well as find out where you can ask for assistance if you're unsure about something. You may find it particularly useful to take a look at the Neutral Point Of View and No Original Research pages, and also please be sure to review the rules about editing Biographies of Living Persons before editing more pages of that type (it's important to follow very specific rules when writing about living people on Wikipedia; please view the link I provided to learn more). You are probably here because you want to improve Wikipedia, and we all make mistakes when we're new (and most of us humans continue to make them occasionally even when we're not new!) - so I won't revert your other edits. Instead, you can review the policies in the links I provided, and then make the necessary changes [to your original edits] yourself in accordance with policy. (If you ultimately choose not to do it though, myself or someone else will eventually do it either way.) I hope you will take the time to learn more about Wikipedia, and how you can put your skills to good use to improve it for everyone! Thanks! LibertyOrDeath (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Some reports are that the oil spill is not that bad and that is not coming from the ship or oil company. The mayor may be biased because he has a political agenda. I didn't see it and even if I did, user reporting is not allowed. Please do not have only a pov article. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"
 * Hello Deepavali 2014,
 * I copied your message on my user talk page to here, as I prefer to keep discussions on the same page (see the note on my user page) as I think it's far less confusing for others to later follow the discussion. Thanks for leaving me a message explaining your opinion, but in the future, please don't just revert an edit that another editor reverted, especially if that editor explained their actions in the edit summary or left you a good-faith message informing you of their concerns that it violated policy.  [I did both of these things.]  That's considered impolite on Wikipedia, and also may be considered disruptive editing or edit warring (especially if you do it repeatedly).  These things don't do anything positive for anyone involved - they waste the time and energy of the editors, and Wikipedia isn't actually improved.


 * I tried to approach you in a friendly way by welcoming you, explaining my reason for reverting your edit, and then writing an individualized message giving you specific links that I hoped you would read, and I encouraged you to become more educated about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I even said that I wouldn't revert your edits to other articles and would give you the chance to do it yourself, in the hopes that you would read the links I'd provided and realize on your own how you had made a mistake - and if you were genuinely here to improve Wikipedia, you would be willing to correct those mistakes for the good of the encyclopedia that we're here to build.


 * Did you/have you read any of the pages I linked to? If not, why?  These are policies that form the foundation of Wikipedia, and every editor should read them.  No one can force you to (although an admin can block or ban you from editing if you don't follow them) but anyone who's here to improve Wikipedia would take the time to read at least the basic pillars.  People will help you when you make mistakes as long as you show that you're here to improve Wikipedia and are willing to learn.


 * However, since you just reverted my revert and you didn't start a discussion on the article's talk page before (or after) doing it, and your message to me was only about that particular edit on that article (not the larger issue I brought up), this conversation should continue on the talk page of the article. I've opened a discussion there, please leave any additional messages about the article itself (i.e. including the content of the article) on that page, and please don't revert your edit again until a discussion has taken place.  If you do have a reply to the issues I mentioned in this message, something that isn't specifically related to the article itself (e.g. an answer to my above questions and so forth), you should place your reply regarding that on this page.  (In other words, stuff related to the article and the content of the article goes on the article's talk page, stuff related to an editor and their actions goes on the user talk page - I know it can be confusing.)  Thank you.   LibertyOrDeath (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

AfD closure
Please read WP:NAC. you are not allowed to close with delete result, if you continue to do so I will report you. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

AFD !vote
Deepavali - I reverted you because
 * A. You added your comment above when it actually goes at the very bottom,
 * B. You stated and I quote "hardly an article and not clearly shouldn't be one. Consider recreation if enlarged more and justified" - To me you're basically saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE which isn't a reason for deletion,

so therefore with the greatest of respect your !vote was pointless,

All that aside my main reason for the removal was because you added it above mine and another editors comment - Feel free to add your !vote but under everyone elses,

Thank you. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think it would have been a better choice to have cut and pasted the iVote to the proper place in the thread, instead of deleting it entirely. If the comment is not based on policies and guidelines, then the closer will disregard it. But removing it entirely seems disrespectful to me. Please reconsider. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sorry just noticed the reply, I think you're right - Had I done that we wouldn't be here now - Well we all make mistakes and can only learn from them. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Alvin Tan— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 06:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're editing the article about a Singapore director. There is indeed another Alvin Tan in the media, but they're not the same person. Mkdw talk 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue
Hi, I've noticed you've gone to 3 or 4 editors because you seem to have an issue with me ? The better option would've been to simply come to my talkpage where we could've discussed it and I could've helped you with your !vote if you were stuck, I removed your !vote for a valid reason and I said in the nicest way you can readd it back at any time so what's the problem ? ...

Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice your sneaky vandalism until after the afd closed. You should confess to ani and confess that the proper response is for you to be blocked for a few days. You should also go to deletion review to appeal the decision based on your deceit.Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Mkdw talk 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am the one that was raped and you jail the victim? I now see how I shouldn't have closed the afd but I thought that I could since I was uninvolved, having no vote there. If you block me for that and it is 72 hours, then I accept that as long as Davie is blocked for three times that because his removing afd comments is far worse and is the Pearl Harbour or 9/11 of this problem.

I think I know that you may be trying to get me to become a vandal. You purposely block someone to make them mad. Very sneaky vandalism tactic!!!! Deepavali 2014 (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * oh my, mkdw, you wrote to Davie2010 but told him that you blocked me and did not admonish him for removing an afd comment. You are really sneaky trying to persuade me to be a vandal. I am not like that but now I know there is a war against women on Wikipedia. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you also see the irony in this situation because you have been sternly warned by at least one two editors who identify as female. If you plan to make accusations about this being a gender issue, you will be entering a substantial conversation to which you will need to provide some significant proof. Mkdw talk 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of your talk page privileges and an escalating block to indefinite are going to be on the table shortly if you do not drop the personal attacks. Before anything, you need to read WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA. You were blocked for disruption and admin shopping after attempting to contact several admins with your complaint. After receiving multiple comments on the issue, recommendations to drop it, and warned that further admin shopping will lead to a block, you went to ANI. Your actions and comments have been particularly WP:POINTY about removing comments of others because it happened to you, something I already addressed with you. The block is here because your conduct prior to admin shopping was less than exemplary. Mkdw talk 06:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am the one who got raped"? "You may be trying to get me to become a vandal"?  "You purposely block someone to make then mad."?  What friggin' universe do you come from anyway?  Shut up and take the damn 72 hours, go see some movies, watch some TV, read a book, and then come back refreshed and contribute productively to improving the encyclopedia. If you come back and vandalize it's totally on  you , don't you dare try to blame anyone else.  (Add don't even think that this is a gender issue, that's just incredible bullshit.  You're acting like an ass, and subsequently you're being treated like an ass, regardless of your sex.)  BMK (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Deepavali 2014 If you continue to make disparaging comments about other editors your talk page access will be revoked. If you wish to request an unblock, please see the instructions in the block notice above. Thanks. Philg88 ♦talk 06:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

NPA must be observed by all parties here and the best thing right now is to walk away and return to constructive editing. Mkdw talk 07:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Davey2010 made a mistake which he admitted above. Deepavali 2014 had the right to be a little upset. But then Deepavali 2014 over-reacted and got blocked. Now is the time for everyone to cool down. Please do not fan the flames. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Deepavali 2014, you were not blocked for closing the AFD. You were blocked for disruption and admin shopping, trying to get Davey2010 blocked for removing your vote. While Davey2010 was wrong to remove your vote (he should have moved it instead or asked you to move it), he has already admitted his mistake and moved on. While I can understand how you must have felt, I think you over-reacted to these events. You asked four different administrators to block Davey. They all refused, because we don't block people for one relatively minor mistake. Instead of accepting this decision and moving on, you posted at an administrators noticeboard, again describing the other editor as a vandal and demanding a block. This is why you were blocked: your ongoing admin-shopping and name-calling was disruptive. Some of your remarks on this talk page since the block have been really inappropriate, too. Please consider how your own actions led to your block and what you can do differently in the future. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)