User talk:Kenfyre/Archives/2021/September

Harassed Husbands dial Delhi women's helpline
Hi, I found this link on Yahoo yesterday and included in my Telugu Article of "Men's Rights Movement India". Thought I would share this with you, so that you can include this wherever appropriate.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/harassed-hubbies-dial-delhi-women-000000520.html

Best regards, - Veera.sj (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If I add that, someone will remove it claiming that it is not related to the movement, it has no specific data or that it is anecdotal. But, I will still try to add it. Whereas articles like this is directly related to and has given the numbers, so it will be difficult to remove. I will add this one after 19 Nov. - Ken fyre (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 Dadri mob lynching
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Suryanelli Rape case
As I have said earlier, accusations against P. J. Kurien is WELLKNOWN and well sourced. You cannot claim BLPCRIME for the same. You may want to rewrite the article in favour of Kurien, but that will not stop me from adding sourced materials to the article. So stop threats. Thanks.--Praveen: talk 14:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I have said earlier on your talk page, I am not removing anything regarding Kurien's accusation but putting them in appropriate sections based on chronology. You cannot create a special section for just one accused, that is WP:BLPCRIME. Furthermore, despite rumours, he is currently acquitted, he is no longer an accused. Until the case is reopened, he is to be treated as acquitted. Even after that, it should be added chronologically. You cannot make a special section for just one accused. - Ken fyre (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, You have removed so many WELLKNOWN and SOURCED materials, simply claiming improving the article. Since you don't own wikipedia, please stop such actions. Thanks--Praveen: talk 06:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please state (A) which info that you want to add, is not anywhere in my version of the article and (B) why do you think it is acceptable of have a special section for Kurien, one of 42 accused.


 * If you feel I am in the wrong, please start a WP:RFC. You don't own Wikipedia either. - Ken fyre (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014, Kenfyre!

Wikipedia editor Damibaru just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"We need something like this in the USA... I would recommend you added more refs, but it is very good nonetheless. However, instead of abbreviating things such as DMK, INC, etc., it would be helpful to the non-Indian reader if they were written out."

To reply, leave a comment on Damibaru's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Re: Swami Premananda page.
Kenfyre: you state that some of my edits have been disruptive. If my efforts to bring some order and sanity to the page have trodden on your religious/atheistical sensibilities,then I am sorry but I must speak truth as I find it. You also make some rather strange statements about Mr Wilson J Wall. The section concerning him (indeed,quoting his very words) which I inserted into the article is, as far as I can see, perfectly appropriate as it clearly displays the alternate view about the DNA evidence. I don't see why you should find it a problem unless you have a problem with facts.

The whole page on Swami Premananda is so riddled with inaccuracies that whenever I look at it I just despair. How to even begin editing such a complete mess? It lacks any cohesion,and relies heavily on sources such as sensationalist newspapers which, although they may hold water in the bleary, geek-ridden land of Wikipedia, would be regarded as risible out in the real world,and particularly in the West. Please explain to me your motivation in seeking to bar me from editing.Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think article is well-researched and all sources have been verified. The sources you provided are unreliable. Share International's magazine is unreliable as it is a religious cult. Wilson J. Wall has not been mentioned in the court documents. So I do not think he had access to the evidence or knew about the procedures. Otherwise he is not notable enough to be even mentioned in the article. But, I have left a brief sentence about him on the page. Wikipedia upholds certain standards, if you feel that those are geeky and atheistic, then are other websites like Hindupedia and Conservapedia. You can also start your own similar website. But if you want to work here, then you will have to uphold same standards as the rest of us. You can make your opinions known at the Noticeboard. - Ken fyre (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kenfyre,if you would be so kind, please have a look at this court document which supports my past edits about the British dna expert Wilson J Wall: https://www.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/29428.pdf The isbn number and details for the book The DNA detectives, which you suggested does not exist is as follows: Hardcover: 192 pages Publisher: Robert Hale Ltd; 1st Edition edition (31 Aug. 2005) Language: English ISBN-10: 0709075049 ISBN-13: 978-0709075042

Also, if you wish, please peruse this article - I'm not sure if it would be deemed suitable for inclusion on the Swami Premananda page. I don't know the person who wrote this article; they are not known to me as a devotee of the Swami. http://www.advaitastoian.com/a-similar-case-of-abuses-of-authorities-in-tamil-nadu-in-chennai-where-satya-yoga-have-its-headquarter-the-strange-case-of-swami-premananda/ Also, one of the editors has suggested that the use of the title 'Swami' is overly reverent: I think that that is not a balanced comment. Either one is a member of the ancient monastic order of swamis and therefore entitled to be addressed as such, or one is not. I suggest a re-edit on that score. Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

H+Pedia
Hi there, as a member of Wikiproject transhumanism, I thought you might want to check out the latest on H+Pedia which now has a revamped home page as an introduction point. :) https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Deku-shrub (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)