User talk:Varuag doos

Help Needed on New Articles
I recently tried to create an article on Wikipedia on Agnotology which was summarily deleted without as much an explanation. I think this is an increasingly important term in the History of Science area and should be kept. Having said that this request is tailored more towards questions about deletion practices for relatively medium length users with some history. I am asking you this because I went through something similar when I was creating an article on a society created by Lala Lajpat Rai. At that time I was given a warning to say the article is likely to be deleted and I managed to scavenge some articles to prove it didn't need to be. I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to go about writing an initial blurb on an article - for sometimes one just knows enough or has only enough time to start an article without citing all the sources - and not have it be deleted peremptorily by some guard.

The problem is that when I start a Wikipedia article, I generally start with very little and go back repeatedly within the next few days to add to the research. It seems that some Wikipedia admins are too trigger happy and I am disappointed by that. Sometimes I can only contribute a small blurb and I still think the topic is important. Please let me know how to go about this and if you can do so, please reinstate my deleted article. It will take me a little time to do research and within some time may be others will step forward who can add to the article.

Expected value
I noticed your edits on that page, and the monotonicity statement is a bit vague. I was hoping you would clarify your edit... What do you mean "the random variable X is always less than Y"? Is that in the almost sure sense, or a property of the cdf? - grubber 02:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have clarified the change. I meant that for all values of x, function X, takes a value that is less than Y, for all values of y. Varuag doos 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography Help needed
I tried creating an entry for James Fishkin, a leading researcher in Deliberative Democracy. I created it after seeing a red colored link to non-existent page from the wiki page on deliberative democracy. I would also like to know how to establish "notability" of a person -  my entry for Clifford Nass that has been flagged by some editor.


 * See Notability (people) for specific information about the notability of persons (Notability (academics) might also help). See Notability for the general principle. An important point is having reliable sources independent of the person. Both of these people look like they are probably fairly notable, but there needs to be more information about who they are and what they have done with external sources about it. If you have any more questions, you can use the helpme tag again or ask me on my talk page. Also, please use ~ at the end of your comments to automatically sign them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mira Nair birth place
I saw that you changed Mira Nair's birth place from Rourkela to Bhubaneshwar, do you have any citations for this? She was born in Rourkela, she herself states this fact http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=130459 Emperorkanishka 18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for bringing up this issue. Here are a couple of references -

http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/cmn/bio.html (A Harvard profile based on interview with her) http://www.mirabaifilms.com/bio.html (Her own production company's website)

In addition to this, my colleague interviewed her and she said that she was born in Bhubaneshwar. Hope this helps.

The transcript of the video is inaccurate, see for yourself - http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/cmn/cmn_video/cmn_2.html (play from the 1/2 way mark when she talks about Dr Zhivago). She says she "lived" in a very small town Bhubaneshwar, while the transcript says she was "born" there. Emperorkanishka 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the video says she lived there doesn't mean she wasn't born there. The transcript is based on the edited video segment and what was said in the unedited video but since that cannot be verified, I agree we may not want to use it for corroboration. But how do you explain the misinformation on the site of her own production company.

Servants of the People Society may be deleted
A tag has been placed on Servants of the People Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think the article qualifies for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy tag. It may still be taken to Articles for deletion, where its deletion may be debated &mdash; Lost (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. At the time, it looked like the article was borrowed straight from a brochure. Looks mostly fixed. Lostintherush, are you helping this user out with advice? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for a quick turnaround. I am in the midst of researching this organization and will keep adding stuff as I find it.

Re:Agnotology
Hi there Varuag doos, sorry for the delay in getting back. I am on a sort of a break these days. The article Agnotology was deleted because it did not provide sufficient context. See the deletion log for details. For the future, its best to create articles in your namespace (as your subpages) and once they are ready you can move the article to the appropriate location. So for example, if you want to create an article called Agnotology, work on it at User:Varuag doos/Agnotology first. Once the article is better than a one line stub, move it to the actual article name. Does that sound good? Let me know if you need more advice &mdash; Lost (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lost. That makes sense. I just sometimes try to create a stub and then go back and add repeatedly as I dig up more research. I suppose it makes sense to only put relatively finished pieces.

WP:RFA
Your RFA nomination page was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/varuag doos. You may recreate it at anytime if you would like. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Desicritics
I have added a "" template to the article Desicritics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Miskwito 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gupta
You will really need to give more details to get that article to be accepted here. and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. These is, very unfortunately, consierable prejudice against people from the academic world. If you do not do this right away, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two-- I apologize for not having time to help personally.
 * saying in the first sentence something to dramatically demonstrate notability, like "A.b. is an internationally-known professor of X at, winner of the XYZ prize and 10 honorary doctorates", or A.B. is a notable authority on Whatever. She is ... (etc) (whatever applies best). Use the exact wording I recommend, including either the word "notable" or "internationally-known" or "nationally-known"; do not use "famous" -- May sound silly, but that is what many people look for here.
 * listing college degrees with university and year -- and putting the university names in double brackets and
 * listing important awards, important memberships and offices held --a list is more readable than paragraphs
 * listing books published as formal references style: Author, title, Publisher, year ISBN if possible.
 * listing some major published papers, say how many total. Do not just link to Google, list the most prestigious papers. State the importance the journals are. Say how many other papers cited them. Use Web of Science if available.

The same is true for some of the other bios you have been adding -- Fishkin, for example. DGG 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if they are deleted. I believe these scholars are important and famous enough to be there. And I see Wikipedia as a collaborative medium so I have made an initial foray and will continue to add as time allows but if editors want to hurry in and delete - please be my guest.

Help needed on Request for Adminship status
Hi, I recently applied for adminship and it appears that the Wikipedia page requesting didn't get any reaction from the community. The time has since then passed. Does this mean - 1) That I need to apply again? 2) Shall I consider non-response a formal rejection? 3) What kind of things do I need to work on to elicit a (positive) response?

Thanks, (Varuag Doos 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Look at your contributions. I see no application. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you notice a little bit further up on my talk page - somebody deleted my application. Anyways, I don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varuag Doos (talk • contribs)
 * The first test of an editor's suitablity to be an admin is their ability to complete the RfA process - and it is not made easy! Your request was not rejected, it was simply never looked at. This was because you had not done the vital edits described here. However that page gives a guide figure of 1000 edits and although you have been contributing for some time, your edit count is not great. I would advise you to wait a while before applying for adminship - properly! Do not be discouraged, I repeat, your previous request was not rejected, it was never looked at. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indian Police Act
By all means write an article about the Indian Police Act. Dumping the text of the act is not an article, it is little better than vandalism. The text is somewhere else on the web. Provide a link to it, then discuss. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Start from a blank page not the text of the act. Here is the one sentence you have so far written:
 * Despite independence, the Indian Police Services still come under the Indian Police Act - Act V of 1861. This was enacted by the British Government to formalize control and structure of police forces in India.

&mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please answer: do you understand the difference between a discussion of the text and the text itself? We do not need the text, neither or raw nor reformatted. Do you agree? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down RHaworth. Varuag, he's right; this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It does, however, belong in Wikisource, one of Wikipedia's sister projects. Wikisource is a collection of primary sources, like laws. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Each significant article and amendment of American constitution cites exact text - example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution My argument is that this is a first step cataloging that text and then putting it in context. I have little vested stake in this (however dramatically I may express myself) and it is only that I think it follows common sense. Delete it - Patrol officers. Lest there be a scrap of useful information of entertainmentpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varuag doos (talk • contribs)


 * The amendment pages do contain a copy of the source, but almost all of the page is discussion. Source documents belong on Wikisource, that's the reason it's there. If you want to write a page about the Indian Police Act, please do so. It does look notable enough. Just make sure you have reliable sources. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Look I feel people try to be disingenous when they say exact text of law isn't kosher. For articles and areas that are chronically underserviced - it is a vital first step. I am sure that the expansion of specific sections will come in due time. Secondly, I think the British Colonial Act is an essential part of Wikipedia and not Wikisource. Wikipedia will carry obvious and critical statements of law (both criteria are met) that will be further embellished in due course. By blanching that first step, you are doing grievous harm to building such chronically underserviced areas. Lastly - law enforcement (that is what you are doing) is always discretionary. If you are of the opinion that this mild waste doesn't injure Wikipedia in a significant way but perhaps charts a way for further significant contributions in the area, you can stop riding the high horse for a little bit. Enforcement zealots are either idiots or ideologues, and you don't seem either. See the article/law in context and decide in an informed manner. I would strongly recommend that you restate the article. Better examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund_Act_1820 Anyways - you guys seem misguided. Dogmatism is the root of all idiocy and I have not much appetite for convincing idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varuag doos (talk • contribs)
 * RC patrol is by no means a high horse. While I stand by my belief that this is what Wikisource was made for, I do have to agree that isn't a big deal in the long run. Just fix up the formatting a little bit, and find some sources. I can't "reinstate" the article; I'm not an administrator. If you do at least make an effort in writing anything beside the Act verbatim, I don't see any reason why you can't recreate the article. Also, whenever you're writing in a talk page, sign your comments with ~ . Paragon12321 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of fixing up the formatting and adding a few details when you guys launched jihad on me. If that shitmaster doesn't reinstate the article, I will try adding it some other time. Not all wiki admins are douchebags. Varuag Doos (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article is being deleted over and over while you're trying to fix it up, you may want to start it off in a user subpage. Maybe User:Varuag doos/Indian Police Act. You can work on fixing the formatting without it getting another speedy. I agree that not all admins are douchebags (very few are, some are just deletionist). Paragon12321 (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes. A discussion of the British Colonial Act is an essential part of Wikipedia. I absolutely agree. But the text of it belongs on Wikisource. Don't you see the difference? You quote as an example the Consolidated Fund Act (why do you use external link format instead of wikilink format?). This is in fact a perfect confirmation of my argument. Consolidated Fund Act 1820 is actually nothing but a redirect to Consolidated Fund Act which is an article about these acts. That article contains this link to the text of one act.
 * In the case of recent UK legislation, we do not need to put the text in Wikisource because it is available online excellently formatted in straightforward HTML files. But if, as I suspect, the Indian Police Act is only available as PDFs or DOC files, that is an excellent argument for creating a nice wiki version in Wikisource . And, Paragon12321, I think the separation of source and discussion is quite a big deal. I would just like to know why Varuag seems so reluctant to accept the principle. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A few more examples: this edit adding the entire text of one act was promptly reverted. Appropriation Act 2000 began as the full text but was changed to a redirect - and has stayed that way. Land Acquisition Act is an excellent example of an article about an Indian act with a link to the text elsewhere. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also! Have you gone to merge your accounts? If you do, you will find yourself already logged in when you go to create the page on Wikisource! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Women in the Information Age


The article Women in the Information Age has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable. Only source of information I could find was a paragraph at the U of M web site.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)