User talk:Telitnetwork

Speedy deletion nomination of Sri Devananda Goudiya Math


A tag has been placed on Sri Devananda Goudiya Math, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  ttonyb (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sri Devananda Goudiya Math and Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math
I've asked that admins review this article for possible inclusion at a more appropriate name. This will require removing the block on the original article's title. In the future, please ask for help rather than try to circumvent article creation blocks by altering the title. It creates more work for everyone. You may follow the status of this request here: Requests for page protection scroll down to the section on Sri Devananda Goudiya Math.--RadioFan (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My Dear RadioFan,

First of all I wish to express my heartiest thanks to your goodness for being considerate, just and reasonable about my impartial endeavour to create the article named Sri Devananda Goudiya Math. My dear Sir, you are the first and the only person in the entire Wikipedia - who has put his reasonable mind to address my issue about the same said article. Sir, you have made me to regain my faith about Wikipedian administrators that there is sill someone who can be trusted as just and proper by the non-administrator Wikipedian users like me. Again I would like to express my heartiest thanks to your goodness.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, your account has been blocked. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. In addition, you seem to already have an account as Snthakur. While alternative accounts can sometimes have legitimate purposes, you should not use multiple accounts unless there is a good reason to do so, and in that case you should clearly state that you are doing so, and explain why. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

}


 * You created the article TEL I.T. NETWORK. This quite clearly puts your user name in the category of "usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) Promotional effort does not apply here since the existence of TEL I.T. NETWORK in reality is questionable now or, it does not now exist in reality so now Wikipedia policy can not be applied for the user name Telitnetwork. It can not represent any promotional act in absence of any such group, organisation or website, neither any unintentional coincidence can be treated as policy violation as well.

(2) True about the creation of the deleted article TEL I.T. NETWORK but, the user name Telitnetwork doesn't represent any group, organisation or website. The creation is not a recent one but was created long ago so if at all the same user name were put to the question of violation of Wikipedia policy it would have raised long ago, not now.

(3) It also clearly appears NOT the result of Wikipedian policy violation rather it significantly reflects the creation of Article Sri Devananda Goudiya Math and Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, so stated Wikipedian policy can not be established as a valid ground of violation done by the user:Telitnetwork.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.telitnetwork.com/ certainly still exists. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only http://www.telitnetwork.com/ ; the article TEL I.T. NETWORK also exists as a deleted article. But in reality a group or organisation does not now exist in the name of TEL I.T. NETWORK which has relevance to the wikipedia user name user:Telitnetwork. A non-existent group or organisation will have no financial gain even if they are alleged to be promoted through Wikipedia.

If one search the web he/she will probably find thousands of such results with the text/word TEL I.T. NETWORK, they will remain there even years after years but production of all these as evidences can not be established as fact that a organisation in the name of TEL I.T. NETWORK now relevantly exists in reality, and a group or organisation in question has relevance with the wikipedia user name user:Telitnetwork.

However, instead of considering all these question in factual aspects if one impugned prefers to interpret the wikipedia user name user:Telitnetwork as violating just because there is a website http://www.telitnetwork.com/ then that would be a sheer misinterpretation about the effectiveness of the concerned Wikipedia policy, nothing else.

Besides, one needs to keep in mind that if one website similar to the name of an wikipedia user name is found then such user can not reasonably be deleted merely because of the existence of such websites.

Similarly, there is a question that if any group, organisation or website is found in the name JamesBWatson, whether the wikipedia user JamesBWatson would liable to be deleted?

13:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: 14 Message from Snthakur (April 2011)

Dear Mr. JamesBWatson,

I thank you for replying the message 14 Message from Snthakur (April 2011) on your discussion page. You have said to made 1517 edits since 7 March but this troll of yours raises question in my mind that what prompted you to mention that? You have also said that since long forgotten my existence and I thank you again for giving me so importance. However, as you feel that I have been creating unhelpful articles since 2006, but I do not find any reason why most of them are still in wikipedia, any contradiction with other administrators? Moreover, it is good to know that you have dedicated yourself to watch my editing from now on, unfortunately you will not find me here editing articles till wikipedia eliminates all of its prejudiced administrators, till then I wish you a happy administratorship. I too feel great in knowning your most gratefulness in me that called your attention to the extent of some problems, unknown to me.

Telitnetwork ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly recreating an article under slightly different titles to get round page protection is not acceptable, and if continued is likely to result in blocking of any account you may have used. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us make Wikipedia a good place to work with:

I believe a true administrator needs to find out answers to the following questions more and use his reasonable mind, that too in a judicious view, even before thinking of blocking any account in a very simple way.


 * Why an article was recreated by a user?
 * What went wrong that a user was made to recreate an article?
 * Whether his or her reasons were heard by the relevant administrators properly, before they deleted an article created by same user?
 * Whether the concerned user is not made a victim by any prejudiced and impugned administrator - who might have arbitrarily deleted an article created by him/her?

After considering possible answers to the above question properly, any action taken by a reasonable administrator might become correct, when taken against an user, obviously not before that.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not understand, what difference will it make to me - as it is explained in the above posting.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Telitnetwork ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)