User talk:Dilip rajeev

Physics related Edits
In this section, I'll be keeping track of all major physics related edits I've made and will also try to outline the reasons for the edits.

Original:


The above picture shows a point of mass that is moving with a constant angular speed around a center. When the change in angle is $$\Delta \theta$$, the change in displacement is $$\Delta$$s. Using the relationship of trigonometric functions, we find that,

$$\Delta s=\frac{r \sin \Delta \theta}{\cos (\Delta \theta /2)}$$

This equation is only valid when $$\Delta \theta$$ does not equal $$(2n+1) \pi$$ where n is integer.

Similarly, the magnitude of tangential speed is always the same. Let $$\Delta v$$ be the change in velocity, v be the initial velocity or instantaneous velocity, and $$\Delta t$$ be the change in time,

$$\Delta v=\frac{v \sin \Delta \theta}{\cos (\Delta \theta/2)}$$

$$\frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}=\frac{r \sin \Delta \theta}{\Delta t \cos(\Delta \theta/2)}$$

When $$\Delta t \to 0$$, $$\Delta \theta \to 0$$,

$$\lim_{{\Delta t} \to 0}\frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}=\lim_\frac{r \sin \Delta \theta}{\Delta t \cos(\Delta \theta/2)}$$

$$v=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0}\frac{r \Delta \theta}{\Delta t}$$

$$v=r \frac{d \theta}{dt}=r \omega$$ ($$\omega$$ is angular speed)

$$\frac{r}{\Delta s}=\frac{\cos (\Delta \theta/2)}{\sin \Delta \theta}=\frac{v}{\Delta v}$$ $$\Delta v=\frac{v \Delta s}{r}$$

$$\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}=\frac{v \Delta s}{r \Delta t}$$

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0}\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}= \lim_{\Delta t \to 0}\frac{v \Delta s}{r \Delta t}$$

$$a=\frac{v^2}{r}$$

Because $$v=r\omega \!$$

We can substitute into $$a=\frac{v^2}{r}$$

to get: $$a=\frac{(r\omega)^2}{r}=r\omega^2$$

Magnitude
Assume $$\omega \!$$ is the angle in radians the body covers in unit time - in other words, the angular velocity of the body. Note that the rotational motion being uniform here we may choose any arbitrary unit for time with no change to the value of $$\omega \!$$ - so, without loss of generality, we assume that our unit of time is infinitesimally small.

The velocity vector, being always tangential to the circle, also turns by an angle $$\omega \!$$ in unit time.

The magnitude of instantaneous acceleration, by definition ,is the magnitude of vector change in velocity in an infinitesimally small period of time. The vector representing this is represented in blue in the above diagram. Since our unit of time is infinitesimally small, for all finite velocities, so will be $$\omega \!$$. Hence, the magnitude of the acceleration vector is $$v\omega \!$$.

Thus, we can conclude that the instantaneous acceleration experienced by a body in uniform circular motion is $$ v\omega \!$$.

We may substitute $$v=r\omega \!$$ in $$a=v\omega \!$$ to get: $$a=\frac{v^2}{r}$$

Direction
Since the magnitude of velocity never changes, the direction of the acceleration vector can only be perpendicular to the velocity vector. It can be seen from the diagram that this acceleration vector must point to the center of the circle.

Reason for Edit:
The original derivation was unnecessarily complex and leaves the reader with no feel for the underlying physics. I believe this derivation is direct and elegant - and the same time lets the reader see directly why the magnitude is v*v/r.

Original:
Pressure increases with depth below the surface of a liquid. Any object with a non-zero vertical depth will see different pressures on its top and bottom, with the pressure on the bottom being higher. This difference in pressure causes the upward buoyancy force.

The hydrostatic pressure at a depth h in a fluid is given by



P = \rho h g\, $$

where


 * $$\rho\,$$ is the density of the fluid,
 * $$h\,$$ is the depth (negative height), and
 * $$g\,$$ is the standard gravity ($$\scriptstyle\approx\,$$ -9.8 N/kg on Earth)

The force due to pressure is simply the pressure times the area. Using a cube as an example, the pressure on the top surface (for example) is thus


 * $$F_{\mathrm{top}} = d^2 \rho h_{\mathrm{top}} g \,$$

where $$d$$ is the length of the cube's edges. The buoyant force is then the difference between the forces at the top and bottom


 * $$F_{\mathrm{buoyancy}} = d^2 \rho h_{\mathrm{top}} g - d^2 \rho h_{\mathrm{bottom}} g \,$$

which reduces to


 * $$F_{\mathrm{buoyancy}} = d^2 \rho g ( {h_{\mathrm{top}}} - {h_{\mathrm{bottom}}})\,$$

in the case of a cube, the difference in $$h\,$$ between the top and bottom is $$-d\,$$, so


 * $$F_{\mathrm{buoyancy}} = - d^3 \rho g \,$$

or


 * $$F_\mathrm{buoyancy} = - \rho V g \, $$


 * where V is the volume of the cube, $$d^3\,$$

The negative magnitude implies that it is in the opposite direction to gravity. It can be demonstrated mathematically that this formula holds true for any submerged shape, not just a cube.

Changed:
The magnitude of buoyant force may be appreciated from the following argument. Consider any volume of liquid of arbitrary shape and volume $$V\,$$. The body of liquid being in equilibrium, the net force the surrounding body of liquid exerts on it must be equal to the weight of that volume of liquid and directed opposite to gravitational force. That is, of magnitude:


 * $$\rho V g \,$$, where $$\rho\,$$ is the density of the liquid, $$V\,$$ is the volume of the body of liquid , and $$g\,$$ the standard gravity ($$\scriptstyle\approx\,$$ -9.8 N/kg on Earth)

Now, if we replace this volume of liquid by a solid body of the exact same shape, the force the surrounding body of liquid exerts on it must be exactly the same as above. In other words the "buoyant force" on a submerged body is directed in the opposite direction to gravity and is equal in magnitude to : $$\rho V g \,$$ ( note that here $$V\,$$ is the volume of fluid displaced by the body )

Reason for Edit:
The original derivation was unnecessarily lengthy and leaves the reader with no real understanding of the underlying physics. I believe this derivation is direct and elegant - and the same time lets the reader feel the physics behind it.

Special Relativity and Time Dilation.. a thought
Pertinent Article:Time Dilation

Just a thought.. it would be completely valid to presume as foundational postulate to special relativity that all objects age/move the same in space-time (dt) ^2 +(ds)^2 is exactly the same for all objects observed in a particular inertial frame.. where dt is how much i percieve the body to have "aged".. while ds is how much i percieve the body to have "moved" spatially in that interval. Distance obviously being measured in 'c' units. Needless to say, time dilation results immediately follow from that assumption. A more elegant way of understanding the result i feel than the usual textbook derivation. Lets the reader appreciate that space and time are not two separate entities but things we percieve as seperate - a limitation imposed by human senses. While the concept space-time is what truly makes sense.

time dilation( and other) results follow intuitively.. ( clock (1) at rest vs clock(2) moving at velocity v:

(dt1)^2 = (dt2)^2 +((v*dt1)/c )^2

dt2=dt1*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay
If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of .--Asdfg12345 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on your behavior
Hi, I've opened a case on your recent editing behavior here.--PCPP (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

==File deletion

File:Persecutionofzhangzhong.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Persecutionofzhangzhong.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE
Kindly note that I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement case in your name today. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on for young and old! --Asdfg12345 05:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue & warning
I've come to tell you the party has changed venues. Please see this permalink. I take the opportunity to formally warn you that the following behaviour already subject to the complaint filed is unacceptable, and that you risk being blocked:
 * 1) On 6 March 2010, with this series of edits, Dilip rajeev rolls back the entire text of the article to the version of '''19 July 2009
 * 2) kindly exercisegreater care when adding or changing material. These changes to 'Propaganda', which included deliberate use of highly charged wording ("skew public and international opinion in favor of its policies") in the opening sentence of the lead and without proper attribution; comments in the third paragraph attributed to Brady were stripped of this attribution are almost certainly in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:A
 * 3) I believe these three edits are slow edit warring:
 * 4) *9 intermediate revisions
 * 5) *10 intermediate revisions
 * 6) *2 intermediate revisions and could result in a block. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The guy discussed those edits on the talk page at the 610 Office. And PCPP's changes were reverted by an outside editor. You're barking up the wrong tree. It's so obvious this has spiralled into personal vendetta. Go complain to PCPP for his boorish and destructive behaviour. --Asdfg12345 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, please take a careful look at the edit history, I have not reverted to any version repeatedly, warred or anything. I have continually tried to make the rationale behind my changes clear as well. Anyway, am making further amends to my approach including spending more time on talk, and attempting to engage the "other side" on talk.
 * Pleas spare me that dross. Of course you know that edit warring is edit warring, it is not contingent on the merits of the underlying edit. Which is why you have a one-revert rule. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I had not removed anything attributed to Brady, and regarding "skew public and international opinion in favor of its policies" thats what the sources say, friend. Western academic and news sources do indeed take a 'charged' stance on the issue. From another perspective, what is propaganda about? Its not "dissemmination of information", is it? You may also want to go through the sources I presented on talk. I did not remove anything attributed to Brady - but, perhaps, I did fix a misattribution. You might want to review all the content I added - over 10K - to the page top better understand what CCP propaganda is about how the sources clearly and unambiguously state its purpose is to skew public opinion and ensure allegiance of the public to its policies. Both the mechanisms - proscription of certain views, active propaganda are aimed at this end, according to all academic sources available. I cant seem to find a single exception. If you could clarify what exactly it is that makes the lead "charged", I am more than willing to fix it. But don't you think its inappropriate to ignore the pages of info I contributed to the article and attack me for that one lede sentence you happen to, for some reason, not agree with? Further, if you point out, with RS, what makes such a lead poorly written, we could definitely take measures to improve it. And I think the talk of the page us where we ought to start when facing such issues.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong related pages
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dilip did not edit war. I just have to make that clear. Editors are allowed to be bold, as long as they discuss and all that. --Asdfg12345 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, may be good to note this line "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Enric, please don't give Dilip this "warning" without explaining precisely how his behaviour "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"; also please be sure to "counsel [him] on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." At the moment the user in question has not edit warred, and has only made a couple of bold changes on the persecution page. He is now discussing those changes. He also discussed things at the 6-10 Office page. You may want to rechannel these concerns to someone like Mrund, who outright attacks any suggestions from editors he doesn't like. That's a good example of failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia and expected standards of behaviour (unless it's now expected that people marginalise and be hostile towards editors thought to be practitioners of Falun Gong; that's quite possible too, given recent events.) By the way, I would not be stepping in for Dilip if he had continually tried to do radical changes, or if he was not seeking to amend his approach. --Asdfg12345 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very droll. This is not a Strawberry gateau, it is a recent deep revert, just like this one, this one and this one are stale deep reverts. Dilip rajeev is an old hand who has been editing (mainly Falun Gong) articles on WP since 2006. I think he knows the score inside and out. You cannot argue he gets carried away with it occasionally, because this is becoming a habit. He has ignored advice from left right and centre, including comments from you, in the past. If he doesn't listen to his 'friends' then there is no hope of anybody else getting through to him. Despite his claimed high IQ, his actions always trod old ground, and are actually extremely predictable. Anyway, I don't think he needs you [asdfg] to speak up for him; it's his prerogative not to engage in discussion about his behaviour here, but he is served with a warning, I think is more than fair. He knows well what is being objected to, and I think it would be an insult to his intelligence and indeed he may find such advice patronising. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, Could you kindly tell me how my contributions, by large, violate wikipedia policies than speak about two single-reverts spanning several months? The first one was a response to your revert to a year old version, as I mention on talk and in my edit summary. Regarding the latter restoration of removed content, I explained my rationale for restoring the material and when not all other editors agreed - I dod not strive to readd the entire material again, but proceeded to explain myself further. Please see talk of the page. You cannot call an attempted restoration of content, with explanation given on talk ( no repeated edits) - "edit warring." I am interested in working with you guys, in working together to improve the articles. But if you keep attacking me throughout - completely ignoring the research and the content contributions I do, and keep hitting me with these labels, how can I even try to do that? I hope you'll be more understanding, note that I have striven to keep my contributions in-line with the sources, done a lot of research, and contributed a lot in terms of objective info from mainstream sources, and that I have attempted to explain my contributions on the talk pages of these articles as well.

I dont understand why exactly the template has been put on here now, but I assure you, most humbly, that I will work on the perceived flaws in my approach, discussing my perspective and my edits in greater detail with all of you who are active on the project. I think we could strive to keep an atmosphere of good cheer, and focus on the content itself, while we work on these articles rather than keep attacking each others.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you really turning over a new leaf? With this, you seem to be insinuating that PCPP is a paid agent of the Communist Party of China. That's rather uncool! Even if I thought it to be the case, I'd probably not say it. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes am making major amends to my approach. I understand your perspective on my ANI comment. In fact, having observed PCPP's edits, I have had the concern for a long while, but never actually raised it - as I cannot make such claims without solid evidence. Since another user also mentioned the issue is worth investigating, I thought I'd share my perspective. Kindly note that I have not directly accused him of being a paid agent, but merely pointed out that the issue is worth investigating further given his approach of repeatedly blanking material on all these pages. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that you are making amends; As to PCPP, it is indeed why I said 'insinuating'. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, you may want to join upwith this project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Human_Rights_in_China . All these articles are lacking in content and I believe you could contribute much to the project. Regarding PCPP there is so much evidence of disruptive behavior on these pages, I think the issue is certainly worth looking into, particularly given the RS telling us that the CCP Propaganda Department has been targeting Web 2.0 technologies like Wikipedia on a large-scale. My point was that its the nature of his edits, etc. that make such a concern legitimate. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Moderated discussion
A suggestion arising from Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is that a moderated discussion takes place with you in which you air some of your concerns regarding Falun Gong related articles, and those concerns are investigated. I have made an offer to moderate the discussion, and some terms of that offer can be found on my comment - Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I note that you have already engaged in discussions with JN466, so I would suggest that we ask JN466 to take part.

I envision this discussion taking place in a subpage of Talk:Falun Gong which I will set up if you agree to such a discussion taking place. Be aware that there is a sanction applying to Falun Gong related articles. This motion directs people to these sanctions. I'll copy out the relevant parts here:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

I'd like to make it clear that the above means that if you edit any Falun Gong related articles in a manner that fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process, such as reverting, edit warring, not engaging in discussions, or removing sourced material without prior consensus, then you will be returned to Arbitration Enforcement Request for the topic ban to be imposed.

Uninvolved admins, including an Arbitrator, looking into the Arbitration Enforcement Request were moved to give you a topic ban. If you decide not to take part in this discussion or you break down the discussion after it has started, the matter will be returned to Arbitration Enforcement Request for the topic ban to be imposed.

My hope is that you will be able to air your concerns regarding the Falun Gong related articles in an atmosphere of impartial and honest inquiry, and that is what I will endeavour to create. If you accept the terms of the moderated discussion and are willing to take part, please let me know. If there is no response from you regarding this matter by this time on 17 March 2010, then it will be assumed you do not wish to take part, and the matter will be returned to Arbitration Enforcement.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept the offer and sincerely thank you for giving me the opportunity. I assure you that I will fully adhere to the expected standards of conduct, and, if, in any edit, I make an unintended mistake, I will take immediate steps to fix things, if it is brought to my attention.

I'll invite JN466 to the moderated discussion. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have set up the discussion here.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
your content is available DES (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the moderated discussion
Silktork, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Wikipedia to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, I'd like to request if the process could be sped-up so that myself and Jayen may directly work on the articles. It would help a lot as I can put the research I have done to best use in the limited time I get to work on wikipedia. If at any point there is any conflict, we could resort to moderated discussion mechanism which is in place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not had much chance to spend time on Wikipedia matters recently, and I'm not sure how much time I'll have to look into your current inquiry. I'll see what I can do, though if you are looking for something speedy at this time, it may be a case of having someone else handle the matter


 * OK, since there was consensus regarding the topic meets WP:N, I will go ahead with its creation and then get other editors to take things up from there.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Dilip_rajeev/Kilgour-Matas reports
Just compiling research on the topic. Any help in terms of research would be most welcome. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Dilip rajeev, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Dilip rajeev/Kilgour-Matas reports. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:WanOrganHarvestationVictim.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WanOrganHarvestationVictim.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kilgour-Matas report
I agree with PCPP that it was inappropriate for you to create the article. That was against the conditions upon which the moderated discussion was set up. There has been little activity from you, and when you do wish to move forward you do so with inappropriate haste, and with knowing that I am particularly busy off-Wiki and cannot attend to matters closely. This doesn't look good for you. My email is activated, and you could have contacted me by email. You could at the very least have let me know what you were intending to do. My intention here, however, is not to get involved in personal issues, but to develop a useful article. I have, with that aim in mind, created in my user space the article as it currently stands - Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report* (updated to link to Article Incubator). I would like to develop this article, along with JN and any other editor who has an interest in this topic. As you have an interest in this area, and useful knowledge, with awareness of good sources, it would be helpful for you to be involved, but I am unsure if you can be trusted. Other editors express concerns about your behaviour, and in your dealings with me you act inappropriately. What assurances can you give that you would not act inappropriately in future?  SilkTork  *YES! 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, I sincerely apologize for having gone ahead with the creation of the page. It was not my purpose to circumvent the moderated discussion process, but was attempting to make the most of a day's time I managed to pull out. Researching the topic for a while had led me to have concerns on why a human rights topic of urgent importance as this was not having its space in wikipedia. My hastiness was driven by concerns along those lines.

I acknowledge it was inappropriate on my part to have created the page without your permission, and I assure you, that, from hereforth, I will work with you on this, strictly adhering to the terms of the moderated discussion process. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChinaKMadmissionMap.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ChinaKMadmissionMap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WanOrganHarvestationVictim.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WanOrganHarvestationVictim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Shen Yun Performing Arts
Hi Dilip rajeev. Under this motion editors working on Falun Gong articles are subject to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Be aware that personal comments such as this are going to be challenged and if such comments persist are likely to result in sanctions being imposed. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by engaging in personal comments. If you feel that another editor's edits or behaviour is questionable, then it is appropriate to comment on the edits or behaviour, asking reasonably for clarification, or directing the editor to relevant guidelines and policies; but is not appropriate to give your personal views and opinions and assumptions regarding the motives or otherwise of such edits. People can become angered by such personal views and the matter can then escalate into a disruption which has nothing to do with the article or the aims of this encyclopaedia. It would be helpful if you went back to Talk:Shen Yun Performing Arts and struck out your personal perspective and assumption.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, I am not the only editor raising concerns with PCPP there. Mine is not an isolated opinion and many editors have been raising concerns along the lines. If you point out the problem areas in my comment, I'll certainly cut them out, and learn from what you point out.

I will stick to just more pointed discussion focusing on the edit alone, however. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have crossed out the last two para - I think that was where I went tangential from the topic at hand. Thanks for pointing out anyways. I think such a focus would be absolutely critical to getting these articles done well. Thank you. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Perhaps reading No personal attacks would be good for you. Attacking your stand point and attacking you as a person are different things. Here are more examples of personal attack:
 * "I could not help but laugh.. "no one seems to know the content of the show"... well take a look yourself, when you can open your mind up enough."
 * "Essentially, your statements reflect but a high degree of hatred/anger at the show - there is no argument in it driven by the need to see a better article."

It's interesting how a lot of things you say come back to you isn't it. --antilivedT 00:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above statements, in the context of the discussion can be seen here, at the end of the page. It is important in what context I said them. I did not mean them as personal attachs on you - if it came across as such, I apologize. But kindly do take one more look at them, in context of the entire discussion.  Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Self-imposed topic ban
As this is the second incident this month regarding Shen Yun Performing Arts and the related talkpage, and you have been warned about making personal comments, I am advising you to stop editing Shen Yun Performing Arts and the related talkpage for the rest of this month. This will give you a chance to reflect on your approach to this incident, and to consider other ways of dealing with the issue.

If you find yourself unable to discuss editing matters with other users in a civil manner, for whatever reason, then you need to have an alternative approach in mind. Continuing to engage in an uncivil conversation is not helpful to you, the other person, or Wikipedia in general. Consider removing yourself from either the conversation or editing of the related article for a period of time until you are less frustrated; or seeking assistance from a neutral person. My recommendation here is that when you return to editing that article and/or discussing matters on the related talkpage next month, that you first seek out a neutral third opinion or assistance on using the disputed references in the article.

While it is a suggestion that you engage in a self-imposed ban, it would not look good if you ignored the suggestion and continued editing. It is likely that someone would then impose a formal topic ban for a longer period. And if you broke that ban you would be blocked for a short period.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Silktork,

While I concur to your suggestion, I request you to kindly take a look at the overall discussion. I did not use uncivil language - except for that isolated remark, which I said in an honestly friendly manner. I was in fact complaining on teh talk that I am finding my self at the end of such an attack.

Since you suggest, I will hold back discussion on the page for a month's time. Not an issue. And I will heed your suggestions when I get back to work on the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kilgour-Matas report
A GA Review of Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China is taking place, and the question of splitting out the section Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China into a standalone article has been raised. This will be a controversial move as there are people who have objected to the allegation and corresponding report being a standalone article, and have insisted on merging it back into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. I support the content being moved into a standalone article, with a summary left behind, as currently this one allegation dominates the article. Added to which the allegation and the report have gained enough media attention to meet notability guidelines. My proposal is to create the article Kilgour-Matas report, leaving a summary behind, and to immediately open a discussion on WP:AfD regarding the notability of the topic. The version I would use is this one, and to update it with pertinent amendments made to Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China, using the images that are in that article. Your comments and suggestions on this would be welcomed. Though, at this stage, as this is to be a controversial move, and your involvement would be likely to incite inappropriate response from others, it may be better if your comments are directed to me only, and you do not directly get involved in the editing of the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Silktork, my opinion is the topic deserves a separate article. For one it is that there is a lot of information coming out on the topic and its too complex to be thoroughly covered in a sub-section. I particularly agree with, and consider most relevant, your perspective that "the allegation and the report have gained enough media attention to meet notability guidelines." WP:N says: "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article."


 * The issue has layers of complexity which make it difficult to be handled in a single article. For instance, the perspective of Kilgour Matas, researchers like Ethan Gutmann, etc., is that whatever laws were introduced by China, in apparent effort to curtail these illegal organ transplants from prisoners of consicence - is but a cover under which such incidents are rising. David Matas' statements on the issue can be read here.


 * According to David Matas: "The Chinese Communist Party/state did not change its policy and law to end the sourcing of organs without consent. Rather the law and policy were changed to silence criticism of sourcing organs without consent...In China, the law has no meaning independent from Party dictates, since the law can not be enforced against the Party/state.  The law exists as a means of communication from headquarters to the field and as an exercise in cosmetics"


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Silktork, Btw, there was a report in the BBC a few years back, on the topic of organ harvestation in China, in general. Just wanted to bring it to your attention - hoping it would help your work work with the page.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

KM Article
Silktork, Kindly do let me know when we move the KM article to main Wikispace. There is room for improvement, but I think its reasonably well done, and comprehensive enough to demonstrate WP:N of the topic - and am sure the article would quickly improve as the Wikicommunity works on it. Thanks, Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion taking place here: Good article reassessment/Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/1 which relates to the KM article. Your views would be welcome.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved the draft of the Kilgour-Matas report from my userspace to: Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report. After about a week there, I will ask another admin to look it over before moving it into mainspace. Because of the article's troubled history (and also as part of what I originally agreed to), I will put it up at AfD to get a wider response to the notability of the material. If the community consensus is that the material is notable enough for a standalone article, the Falun Gong material in Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China will be reduced to a sentence and readers directed to the new standalone Kilgour-Matas article.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And Do You Have To Create A New Section For Each Separate 'Concern'?

 * Are you perhaps trying to make a point?? I'm still waiting for you to haul me over hot coals with your "evidence" at WP:ANI... -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on finding yourself a well-deserved new home for yourself, to which you are eminently more suited. You will already know that your apparent interests are aligned with the Epoch Times, and thus you are less likely to suffer from conflict of interest than you are here editing Wikipedia. Best of luck. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My real "new home" would be this: http://chineseideographs.com. :-) In fact, I am the first person[ever, i guess] to present proof to the effect the language is purely ideographic - and the book has been well reviewed by academics I've presented it to. So, continuing work on the subsequent volumes. I've been compiling an article on my theory and hope to get that published by those who would publish it - and I think now I know whom to send! I enjoy study of Chinese traditions a lot - and sometimes this spills over into a study of contemporary China! In fact, till you mentioned the above I was not aware my name was "published" with that article there. :-))


 * As for my "profession" am an engineer - but my interests span multiple fields - which include writing, research, homeopathy, physics, human rights ( recently I built this website: http://1millionsigns.com ), music theory, ancient greek math, heuristic theory, you mention!
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On Ã second read your note surprises me - I think four of you - at least more than two - if memory serves right - hit upon this peice of research on me, and complained about it as well, as if it were.. - well, that leaves me a bit amused on why so much research would be on me from you guys. If you insist on an explanation - well, I write up a lot.. that interested, folow my issuu folder -  http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs, and further I would whole heartedly agree to it if xinhua or cctv would publish an article I wrote or a research complied http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuv0AxI9-PI ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTmn3d5qnF0&feature=related as such, with no changes whatsoever, without my permission. Would it? Just relax, am an editor here - and please dont follow me so closely on my private life, interests, or any articles I might choose to write, or any research I might choose to do. A little concept, we have outside of ccp world - thats called "freedom."
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Close discussion?
Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion  SilkTork  *YES! 11:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP HOUNDING ME
Dilip rajeev. Please stop hounding me! Take me to WP:ANI if you have a problem. I'm not covering it up anything. You do yourself no favours by your continual harassment of people who disagree with you. You are the single most important reason I stopped editing Falun Gong articles. You claim to be a human rights activist, but in fact you are nothing but a Falun Gong apologist. Your bashing the Chinese government in itself does not qualify you to be dignified with the human rights activist label. Now you blame me for "outing you" when all you need to do is to examine your own behaviour. Truth is that you have made more powerful enemies than me. A simple search of Google will reveal a more likely cause of your receiving weird emails which you seem to be happy to blame me for. I have already left Falun Gong articles alone for a long time, having un-watchlisted them all. I intend never to go back, not even to fix a date format or a comma. I certainly don't expect you to come edit-warring on my talk page – you have the fucking nerve! Any more of your harassment will not be tolerated; I will personally see to it that you are indefinitely blocked. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As to your scepticism at me finding your authorship of an Epoch Times article – the article concerned comes up as the first hit here. Goodbye (I won't say au revoir) and adieu. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My question was why mock, based on that? Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just requested an explanation, and am sure expletives are not needed here. Further, you kept deleting my explanation request, repeatedly, with no explanation, from your profile. Was quite surprised by that behavior. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you kindly show me recent instances of where I "blasted" the communist regime on wikipedia, please? Since you make the accusation, and say that makes me an unresepectable human rights activist, or something, above, am curious as to what exactly you are talking about. And things I may write outside of wikipedia, this article for instance, http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs/tsfinal [sine you apparently must focus on it as well], they count but still.. I do no never baseless-ly "blast,"  anyone as you claim above. And mis-characterizations of who I am or what I am about, well, as an editor - should I leave myself open to such? Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And no I am not scared of "powerful enemies" but they irk me quite a bit. Such mails, and out of context attacking comments. Btw, try to restore my comments on your profile - you blanked it 7 times or so. You say it was "hounding" - thats again mischaracterization and slander'on me. Why would you delete "hounding" comments repeatedly - you could just leave it there, let it be and use it as evidence on your claims - couldnt you? Why quickly shove it away from all other editors? Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your email with the link, and for trying to patch things up. I sincerely appreciate the gesture. However, I really have no interest in further continuing the Falun Gong saga in any way, shape or form. Forgive me for not replying to you by email, but I am not interested in continuing any such discussion with you on- or off-WP. Regards, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No issues, just felt I must.. and I believe this is the video you thank me for having shared.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVWaslqzYP0&feature=related .. well, that was just on a personal note, and would still urge you to share it with your friends as well.. was a video / topic I was engaged in exploring while I wrote the mail, and believe may have some substance to, and hence worth a deeper thought, and profounder consideration... Not really my intent to pull you back into any debate on Wikipedia. Regards, Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. wctaiwan (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your rights to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at . T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of information: The recent actions of this account were mainly to spam for a site named 2theregime.com. It is the typical mix of advocacy and proselytism of the sort of pseudo-science the actual owner was accustomed to pushing here on Wikipedia before his topic ban. The note at the bottom indicates it was: "Written by D Rajeev, a researcher into Chinese Characters and symbolism in ancient traditions. The author requests the reader's assistance to help spread this info and bring an end to the on-going persecution. A strong impact could be achieved by mailing or faxing in this information to China, particularly targeting government offices in China ..." -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
This is a note to let the main editors of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, stated that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, or the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, among others. The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LittingGirlMeditatingFG.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LittingGirlMeditatingFG.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Falun2nd Exercise small.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Falun2nd Exercise small.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cong Recg 00.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Cong Recg 00.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)