User talk:StuffandTruth

TBA

Sikhism in the United Kingdom
Hello - assuming you're new here and not a seasoned editor starting a new account, welcome aboard! Just to let you know I reverted one of your edits on this article for reasons I explain on the talk page there. If you have reason to believe I have made a mistake, do please present your case there. If there's any other matter (outside the article) you would like to raise or ask about, feel free to post on my talk page. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your reading of the Mail on Sunday article, which still strike me as no more or less than WP:OR, and your refusal to understand the points I have been making about this forces me to take this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as you suggested here. Alfietucker (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alfietucker (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at other options (partly because we've had no response yet at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), and - not having gone down that road before - I'm beginning to think a more constructive way forward may be to get a third opinion. Unless you have a strong objection to this (please let me know in the next 12 hours), and if there has been no useful/helpful response from Admin in the meantime, If you agree (please let me know sooner rather than later) I shall transfer the matter there. Otherwise I'll let it stand and see what response we get. Alfietucker (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Third opinion is good. Although I'd wait at least 24 hours for a response from someone at ANI. To be brutaly honest this matter is really trivial - I feel like we can sort this out really quickly ourselves since it relates just to wording. I had liked what you had placed in before it got to ANI, that Faith Matters CLAIMS it - as I'd thought that was a suitable compromise instead of total removal. I'd suspect other editors would agree that was good enough. But if you'd like to pursue this path then I guess we'll just be waiting for their response. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request

 * I have just asked for a second opinion. If my fellow CU disagrees with me, I'll unblock you and apologise. For the moment, I can only ask you to please have patience. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So what's going to happen now? It's been a while now. Over 24 hours. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just heard back from the other CU. It appears I was wrong and, so, I have just unblocked you. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused to you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Polite notice
I assume it was through carelessness, but your comment here effectively accused me of tendentious editing. This was wholly unjustified, and as this is not the first time you have done this (again without justification), I hope you will be good enough to apologise for this. Alfietucker (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit made it seem so. I cannot understand why you said it was an unreliable source and then kept it in the article by selectively choosing what to include. It warranted either total removal or a clarification of where it actually came from (which was what my edit did as I actually named the source in-sentence). It seemed like you were being selective, and attempted to portray it as absolute fact - and not as a questionable fact, given that it was from a tabloid. Still, I am pleased that you saw sense in it's removal a while later. There is nothing to apologise for. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to try one more time to explain: my objection was to deriving material from the strapline of the article (I would object to strapline-derived material from any article) rather than from the article itself. By strapline, I mean the line or two of text often found immediately below the headline and before the main text of the article itself: its purpose is to entice/provoke readers into reading the article, and are invariably written by a subeditor rather than the author of the article.


 * The citation from The Star, and text based on it, had been added to the Tommy Robinson (activist) article by another editor years before I started editing that page. When I reverted your edit here I was not "choosing what to include" except in the negative sense that I was reverting to an earlier version which did not base its material on a strapline. You say that it "seemed like you were being selective, and attempted to portray it as absolute fact" - which manifestly shows that again you were not assuming good faith. Just how was I attempting "to portray it as absolute fact"? (Indeed I was the one who removed the Star-based material, for reasons I explained here.)


 * I still hope to receive an apology, particularly as if you are going to continue editing on Wikipedia you will certainly have to work/collaborate with me. At the very least, I hope you will stop and reflect on the effects of your own edits and actions over the last few days and particularly the last 24 hours. Alfietucker (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Crit. of Muhammad
Sorry, I inadvertently removed your edit when deleting something else. Czolgolz (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. StuffandTruth (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Caste system
It's not mandated in Hinduism, it's the part of society, rather than it's the part of religion, nor it's limited with the Indian society, but prevalent in other regions of the world. Sati (practice) is not a part of criticism either, since it was done on purpose, not implied/restricted by the religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying recent arguments
Honestly, it is no more a point whether he is historian or not. Or that he can be used as source or not.

Bigger point is:-


 * 1) Estimates are related to death of Hindus?
 * 2) Digby dispute the stats?

Once they are cleared, further changes will be made to Persecution of Hindus. Relax. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Digby disputes the methods of Lal. He says they are based on poor sources. Again just look at the ending paragraph. He says they are so poor that "they are wilful, if not fantastic". This is all that should be added in. The fact of the matter is both sources are by scholars. Both of them are historians. And there is criticism which should be included as a recent administrator said. That should be the end of the matter. If it's the wording that bothers you why are you attacking the source? StuffandTruth (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait till it is solved in RSN(reliable source noticeboard), if it is unrelated to hindu population, it wouldn't be needed for "Medieval" paragraph or Lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is resolved at RSN. You keep claiming it's unreliable. You cannot have one claim without criticism just because you don't like it. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait till like.. 24 hours - 72 hours, since the first post on RSN Bladesmulti (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus
Hey, kudos to you for persisting in the face of incredibly blinkered and idiotic arguments. I had a similar fight with BM a few days ago, as you must have noticed. The only thing is, despite your insertion of Digby, I still feel upon reading the article today that it is a severe case of WP:UNDUE in terms of the weightage given to the borderline Islamophobic sources. I would liek to clean it up, but while we work on that I think the POV tag should remain. What do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing edit away and do insert the POV tag. I will review and check your sources to see if a balanced view is being held and make edits where necessary. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I guess it's only fair to warn you that BM edit-warred over the POV tag once already. Also, I promise to work on it, starting this minute, (which is to say I'm not indulging in drive by tagging), but can't spend vast amounts of time on it. Cleanup will be a slow process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he does not own that article. But we seem to have consensus on this POV tag. Have you also considered writing an article in WP:user space and then transferring it over after Request For Comment (WP:RFC)? Many articles are created that way and improved without having to resort to edit warring. As an example click on Vanamonde93/Persecution of Hindus and start writing an article. I'd be glad to help with that. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

S&T, even if it turns out that Lal is referring to Hindus, I have some concerns about
 * a) The fringe nature of the source.
 * b) The fact that even if he is talking about Hindus, he is not referring to killing (or at least, that is what the quote says).

Therefore, I feel the source should be removed. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had concerns too of it's fringe nature as it is not universally accepted. Lal is the only one to ever claim such a thing. However he is worth mentioning given that every Hindutva organisation out there quotes him because he's an academic. Further, given that Digby also critiques Lal's method, as do other historians, that strengthens the need to keep him there in that article, and this must be accompanied with a balanced view. Further, many people do not also realise that population can decline because of lots of things including the fact that the richer a country becomes, the less children they have (witness Japan and Russia who's populations are in decline because of economic prosperity whereas Indias is skyrocketing owing to poverty - but is now beginning to slow. The same can be said of Islamic countries). StuffandTruth (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That, my friend, is precisely my point; he does not say "killed by Muslim invaders," so we can't really include him here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'm overthinking it. It probably better belongs on some other page of which I will include it in. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

3rr

 * Hi Stuff - I'm not going to take the time to go over each edit you have made because of the length of the page, but it takes two to tango and you were editwarring at Persecution of Hindus also. You made at least four reverts, and I stopped counting at four. #1 at 6:22, #2 at 5:07, #3 at 4:44, and #4 at 4:39.  Please remember that editwarring is not okay, even if you believe you are right and the other person is wrong. In the future if someone continually reverts you and you think they are in the wrong, use a mechanism other than editwarring please: the talk page, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, etc.  Because you and Blades both engaged in an editwar of silly size, I'm going to be issuing you the same block I issued Blades for Blades 3rr vio. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I am fine with that. Fair is fair. I just thought I could revert if he was edit warring ie trying to stop the publication of a reliable source on Wikipedia. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3rr is a bright-line rule, it applies if you believe you are right, and even applies when you are absolutely in the right. It has very limited exceptions - you can exceed it to remove libelous content about a living person, copyright violations, and outright gibberish, but cannot editwar to try to win a content dispute.  In the future, please try to use any mechanic other than editwarring - I find it very unfortunate when editors who productively contribute to Wikipedia (and I think everyone who I have blocked over this has productively contributed to at least part of Wikipedia) are blocked to stop silly things like this.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Persecution_of_Hindus. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Have made sections on spread of sati
Hi, there! I have added a "small" discussion on the spread of sati on Death by burning and a more detailed one on Sati (practice), as discussed by Yang. If you wish to make a few comments on this before you have regained normal status, I think you are allowed to do so here at your own talk page.Arildnordby (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will review it later tonight. Thanks for bringing this up Arildnordby. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong on your suspicions of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Possibly, possibly not. It is worth seeing if he's a meatpuppet if not a sockpuppet as ANI suggests. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, meatpuppet or sockpuppet, there is much the same type of arguing, mass removal of well-sourced material, along with a predilection for Hindutva sympaties. Besides, how can you know if the guy isn't using two different computers when scribbling under different names????Arildnordby (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you agree with the edit about figures now? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet investigation will take care of this. Blade is about to get indef blocked anyway. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2014 (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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)