User talk:Knverma/Archive 2

DXN
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DXN, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of DXN. Argyriou (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

hi
Indian Police Service needs your kind attention urgently Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article
Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Objective edit summaries
I agree with the reversions which you recently made at Cult, though I would not have used the edit summary "unnecessary reference to a group". What group is necessary or unnecessary to reference in the Cult article is often a matter of strong personal opinions on several sides (see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I suggest it would helpful for isolating conflict-of-interest edits by group members (for example, those who remove mention of their group), to use objective guiderule or policy-based edit summary reasoning; such as, those edits expressed an unreferenced POV. (All other things being in balance, referenced POVs are ok). (Please reply here if desired) Milo 08:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, more precise edit summaries would be helpful.
 * BTW, regarding our previous discussion, I haven't been able to look more into the matter. I am shifting to a new country, and for this and other reasons, Wikipedia is not much on my mind at the moment. --Knverma (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Network TwentyOne
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Network TwentyOne. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)