User talk:Atulsnischal/archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atulsnischal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Rajib for Systematically Vandalising the articles I woked on

+++YOUR COMMENTS ON MY Page+++++

Adding spam and irrelevant external links

Please do not add a very large number of unrelated external links to articles. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is NOT. If you continue adding such links, you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you. --Ragib 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ragib 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

+++++MY COMMENTS++++

Dear user Rajib, please don't vandalize the articles I have worked on, instead of improving the articles you are just deleting the "reference list" for the article, this has gone on for couple of articles, you are systematically following the articles I worked on and vadalizing them, I will shortly be reporting you to wikipedia Administartors. Consider this a Warning!!!!. If you want to improve an article you dont take out its reference list. You could have contributed to Wildlife of Bangladesh, I even asked for help on your page, but the article remains at square one after so long while you have had lot of time arguing with me and vandalizing my other articles. Please do not remove this comment from your page, let other be warned too of your great credibility and coopretaion.

Atulsnischal 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CAn somebody please talk to Ragib, one argument that started with him on Bengal monitor page has led to an ongoing onslaught on the articles I have worked on, instead of improving them, he is been removing Reference list from my articles, following the idea from another user David D., can you please talk to both.

Thankyou

Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I have already reported your activities at WP:ANB/I#Atulsnischal_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_reported_by_Ragib. Other admins have agreed with me that your spamming of the articles was quite bad. Thank you. --Ragib 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you PLEASE stop misspelling my user name deliberately ? Thank you. --Ragib 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

IIFM placements

Do you have details on this years placements ? Haphar 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal

Suggestion

Hi Atul, The nathistory-india page may be revived. It would perhaps not have gone to afd if you spent some time on writing carefully. Would suggest that some time is spent on reading and studying the structure of featured articles. You will note for instance that the captions on most of these articles are short and precise. The body text should also be in the encyclopaedic style. Advocacy is not to be included (for instance a statement like "We should save this species" would almost invite an afd to your doorstep). Cite the best references, place material in context and do not add too many or irrelevant external links or see alsos. That should take you a long way. cheers. Shyamal 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal, I have a few things to say too

They started the deletion process because they said, IT IS A NON-NOTABLE List, which is of course not true at all as you and I both know.

Also People of all skill levels are welcome to edit and contribute to Wikipedia and such, it was basically an article that had the correct vision, but needed editing help, you know what I mean, a technical writer's touch.

This list itself is a new media thing and people have to still wakeup to such networking platforms like these and appreciate their contribution to society, unfortunately journalists have not yet realized the potential to do features on lists from time to time which would have been really very handy to quote. The paucity of Newspaper articles about the list was also the main issue as it could have established the notability in a second. There are several Wildlife and Conservation Journalists on the list though, just have not woken up to a new living and breathing thing.

Also 95% of the writers out there are not scientific writers, or technical writers, assistants usually take care of these little things for them.

And as far as contributions on Wikipedia go, people are supposed to help edit and rewrite articles here to improve their quality, correct spellings of others, punctuations, rearrange facts and paragraphs to provide a better flow, provide proper sources, ............ who ever gave you the idea the that the contributor who started the page / article needs to finish it. Over the years hundreds or thousands of people should help improve an article and update it from time to time and NOT put it up for deletion on the third day, this kind of behavior discredits Wikipedia itself.

Since I did lot of research on Asiatic Lion hence I noticed another short coming of purely scientific or technical writing, you guys do not hesitate at all to quote an article even though the article may have all nonsense in it, Asiatic Cheetah Diet is still quoted from a bad source with nonsense in it, the National Geographic article from 2000 on Asiatic Lions has nonsense that Asiatic Lions are highly inbred, but technical writers dont hesitate quoting such reputable sources and present it as gods own truth.

Now lets come to our project "Protected Areas of India" or Zoos, you guys are so busy technically writing and correctly quoting that you forget that basics like, how much is the ticket, how to reach, closest railway or airport, what is the best season to visit, what are the accommodations offered, are guides and rides / cars available, who are the contacts etc., any special clothing suggested (Snakes, mosquitos), etc. etc. are also import information that should be included and will be useful to the reader, there is ofcourse no need for us to sell a holiday package to them but a little reader oriented info would be definitely useful to include in an Encyclopedia. A little bit of thinking outside the box is needed for techies.......

I have already told you guys that I really appreciate your efforts, so don't think otherwise. I have even made an effort to tell India about it, here is the link:

https://lists.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0702&L=nathistory-india&T=0&F=&S=&P=14871

Thanks for your help though.

Atulsnischal 07:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my intent has been misread. I would like you to positively contribute but make some changes only in writing style.

Regarding notability, there is a problem and it is recognized as Systemic bias. India in spite of so called advances in information technology is still caught in a folk culture and does not believe in putting information in writing. There is a comfort in oral tradition and now substituted in a visual tradition by lazily taking photographs with low information/volume ratio.

Regarding Cheetah diet, please make the needed changes. Not everybody is an expert on Cheetahs, so please add but cite published information. I am sure your own research papers may be worth citing.

Regarding lion inbreeding: as a person who has studied enough of population genetics formally, I can tell you that both the American view and the Indian study need to be placed in context to the reader. Real world science is not as objective as you might think although the philosophy aims to make it so. A low genetic diversity can be caused either by a historical population bottleneck or inbreeding. The data is clearly the same, but the interpretation is different. The American study claims that this spells disaster. The Indian study claims that this is the same level of low diversity as those of tigers and if one considered tigers to be in a better position then so are the lions. Hope my point is clear.

Regarding making wikipedia articles on locations into tourist guides - there are again some guidelines and one of them is that we keep material more on the subject and not include things like "how to" - but there are places for it [www.wikitravel.org wikitravel].

Further please note that there is no club here, we work as individuals. So I am not sure who the you guys refers to. No offence taken however. More than appreciation, I hope you can contribute usefully by focusing on the subjects. best wishes Shyamal 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Atulsnischal 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding articles to See Also section

Dear Atul, I noticed that you have added a lot of internal wikilinks at various articles under the "See also" sections. Please note that you need not add every internal link to that section. Terms and topics mentioned and linked inline should not be duplicated there. Also, unrelated links should not be added. I have removed the duplicated wikilinks from these articles.

The same applies to external links ... you should not bunch together a huge number of tangentially related external links to every article.

Thanks. --Ragib 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, calling edits that adhere to policy, as vandalism [1] is a bad habit. Please do not do so. Thank you. --Ragib 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be complaining about my editing of articles you have edited. Well, I have found your (possible) misunderstanding of internal and external linking, overlinking, in most of the articles you have edited. Hence, I have gone through these edits and fixed them. Please take the advice I gave above against adding redundant links. Feel free to contact me if you need any further clarification. Thank you. --Ragib 07:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For further reference:

[2] - I removed a ridiculously large number of wikilinks you added here, linking to almost every term ever mentioned in the article or related to it. This is just an example of the over-linking/redundancy I mentioned. Thank you. --Ragib 07:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This Conservation & India related Article is being considered for deletion, kindly have a look when you have some time, Wikipedia is taking Votes for Deleting it or Keeping it, please do improve the article if possible:

http://wiki.riteme.site/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png

Bold textRelisted after first Deletion Review for Second time as AFD, Votes being taken for Deletion or Keep.

First Deletion Review, Please clisk on "SHOW" against the article name.
First time around at AFD - Article for Deletion

Thanks Atulsnischal 12:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list: A proposal

Hi Atul, from what I can see the article on nathistory India cannot possibly ever make for encyclopaedic content. However there is a way to incorporate and highlight the role of the group and the ideal place would be to place it within the History of conservation in India article as a section on the contribution of the Internet era. Hope this is fine with you. Cheers. Shyamal 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal

You are welcome to change your Vote :), but it is only one vote, there is no need to panic, you might want to save a work copy of the article though in case it is deleted and hidden again.

As for me I believe it is encyclopedic, I will like the article to stay as it is.

But you have a very very good point, you can also always do what you propose above, great and a fitting idea in itself. So I suggest NO Delete And Merge, Keep the article as it is, yet have a section on the contribution of the list in other major conservation articles on India and elsewhere.

Exactly as you say it should be also mentioned in the Contributions of the Internet Era to the Natural History and the Conservation of the region.

As for me I firmly believe it is encyclopedic in itself to have a article on this South Asian Natural History Network.

Thanks for your input

Atulsnischal 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Two things. First, I would feel more comfortable if you maintained a user page. The idea of the red link to nowhere is disconcerting. Second, it is the Natural History of South Asia that is encyclopedic; not the mailing list addressing same. The mailing list might be included in a broader article that deals with the Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Like you suggested, I wrote a few lines on my user page, instead of leaving it blank or as a redlink, when you get time can you kindly help me Archive my talk page, please do it anytime you get time. Thanks. As for the mailing list I firmly think it is a pioneering example from the region and is hugely notable and hence Encyclopedic :-) Atulsnischal 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I learned about archiving by visiting User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. Hope this helps. Good luck with your review. Remember, you catch more bees with honey. Bluestripe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Archives

Hi Atul - your talkpage archives needed some fixing, which as an administrator, I have undertaken. Please don't be offended. The issue of the archiving format problem was raised by respected editors and you should have listened to them. They are not trying to offend you. Rama's arrow 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the help. Atulsnischal 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

World Heritage template

Hi! I created a template for World Heritage Sites: {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. Since many protected areas tend to overlap with World Heritage-designated places, will it be possible to re-format the template in the same way as the Level 1, 2, 3... style? In that way, we can prevent too many infoboxes showing repetitive infos. In terms of its relationship with the IUCN protected areas, I found a link: http://whc.unesco.org/cairns/iucn-priorities.pdf (refer to page 15 of this publication/page 17 of the pdf file). Hope you can help in improving the template and making it more relevant to readers. Thanks. Joey80 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

Are you a member of this mailing list? Chris cheese whine 12:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What all are you a member of, what is your religion, which god you like, who is your politicle star :)?????

Atulsnischal 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not joking. Are you a subscriber to the list? Chris cheese whine 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am from India and like nature and want to conserve it, yes I am a member of this Network, it has been a helpful forum assisting in conservation. Atulsnischal 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is generally considered to be a Bad Thing to be editing articles about things we are directly involved in. In future, please refrain from editing the article directly, but you are welcome to propose further changes on the talk page of the article. Chris cheese whine 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, you are wrong, I am also an Indian, so shall i stop editing articles about India, By the way the article went through a deletion debate, I made my position clear there to all administrators. Also lot of people like to write about what they like and strongly feel about. Please avoid phycing other Wikipedia Users in future and stop to try and get to personal details of others and their orientation. STOP IT:) Atulsnischal 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Being Indian is non-specific (it's you and a billion other people). Being a member of this list is pretty specific. It only got through the deletion debate as a result of the bogus references. Do not make further edits to this article. You are also on the brink of violating WP:3RR, as you have reinserted the bad info three times now. Chris cheese whine 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop vadalising the article. If you like it I will leave it to othersAtulsnischal 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is vandalising the article. Go learn what vandalism is before accusing other people of the same. Chris cheese whine 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment was in response to your trolling the talk page:

Atul, please refrain from calling edits vandalism. You have done this in the past ... and have been warned for that. Chris has cited the Conflict of Interest policy, which is a valid one. Thanks. --Ragib 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris cheese whine 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Here you appeared to replace the content of your talk page with the content of one of your archives. I get the feeling that wasn't quite intended. ;-) Chris cheese whine 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Deletion Review and talk pages

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia processes, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion review, you will be blocked from editing. Chris cheese whine 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, helllooooooooooooooooooooo what are you talking about """"DISRUPT""""", quite a MMMAAADD SCIENTIST YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!

Atulsnischal 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been manupulatiing Wikipedia Pages by selectively taking out and blanking my legitimate comments calling it Trolling, including from your own talk page, everytime I leave a comment you blank it out.

Atulsnischal 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for everybodies reference I am providing here the previous deletion debates for Natural History of South Asia mailing list, this Wikipedia Article passed these DELETION DEBATE ALREADY

Another relisting to Afd (Articles for Deletion) "Step - 5 of Deletion Review."
Listed another time for Deletion Review as some felt the references to the Article are Bogus, again this article passed and went on to be relisted at Afd (Articles for Deletion) "Step - 4 of Deletion Review."
Final Version of this Article that passed the Deletion Debate

This Conservation and India & South Asia related Wikipedia Article had been nominated for deletion as some felt this Natural History of South Asia mailing list / "Natural History Network" is not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia, to the contrary Wikipedia did not find any reason to delete this article and Restored it. For those interested and for a general record, provided here are the links to the deletion debates which this article passed:

Relisted after first Deletion Review for Second time as AFD, Second detailed AFD Debate result was that the Article indeed merits a place on Wikipedia. "Step - 3 of Deletion Review."
First Deletion Review after first AFD debate decided to delete, Please click on "SHOW" against the article name to see the full deletion review debate. "Step - 2 of Deletion Review."
First time around at AFD (Articles for Deletion). "Step - 1 of Deletion Review."

Thanks Atulsnischal 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Atul, you are making false claims once again. The 1st AFD resulted in Delete, the 2nd AFD actually resulted in no consensus, and NOT keep. The only reason a lot of the users were misled was because you had inserted a bunch of fake references, and claimed they "cite" the list. --Ragib 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ragib 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ragib 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have reached limits by now .... Please stop. --Ragib 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported

I have reported your violation of 3RR. Please take the time of your upcoming block to go through the policies of Wikipedia and be calm. I hope you will come back once your coming block expires and make constructive edits (unlike the personal attacks and rants posted above). Thank you. --Ragib 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I'm sincerely sorry to see you get blocked, but you should take the time to learn about Wikipedia's policies about editing, conflicts etc. This is not really a battleground. That I voted against an article in an AFD doesn't mean I have something against you personally. If others do not think an article is suitable, and they back them with proper arguments, you shouldn't feel frustrated, nor feel that everyone is against you.

Anyway, I hope you will return and continue your good work on conservation related topics ....

Thanks. --Ragib 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Why do you feel the need to post that very same piece of text which has been considered a personal attack on WP:AN ([3])? Please refrain from being disruptive, thanks. x42bn6 Talk 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR violation at Natural History of South Asia mailing list. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Atul, good to see you back after the hiatus. Hopefully, you'll have a great time in contributing to wild-life related topics. Thanks. --Ragib 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I am quite disappointed you haven't even made oan attmept to expand e.g Wildlife of Pakistan you created months ago there is a mass of info!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its up and going!!!! {{WildlifeofAsia}}

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for establishing and working on these series..... hopefully it will catch on soon and lots of people will create these country articles and make them more and more informative for all.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nripendra"

Thanks Atul

Yes I hope we can have a great written article for each country -I'm currently working on Africa -but I want these articles to be more than just for kids - they can clearly contain info you would find in a national geographic etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Hunters

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fossil Hunters, by Blackzeppelin (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fossil Hunters fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

only a collection of "see also" links

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fossil Hunters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"See also" sections.

Hi, thanks for your efforts on conservation biology atricles. I just wanted to point out that the "See also" sections are called that, please stop changing them to "Also see". Please note also that the manual of style ([[4]]) recommends "see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject". Best regards, Pete.Hurd 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Creating articles

I would recommend that you don't create articles unless you have sources for them. There are enough unreferenced articles as it is without creating new ones with no sources. Unsourced articles may be put up for deletion, and it is better to work with existing articles when possible and discuss splitting off when it comes up. Please also avoid adding empty sections like 'external links' if there are none, and avoid capitalizing names of articles unless needed (e.g. Genetic Pollution should be genetic pollution, no? The same goes for headings (External links, not External Links) My advice on this one, for example, would be to start out from hybridization and if it becomes too large, split it off and create a new (referenced) article. Richard001 06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

categorization and subcategorization

Hi Atulsnischal, Please note that the wikipedia guideline on subcategorization is that an aricle should not be in both a category and a subcategory of that article. For instance, if Genetic erosion is a member of the population genetics category (which itself is a member of the categories Evolutionary biology, and Genetics) then Genetic erosion ought not also be included in either of the categories Evolutionary biology or Genetics. Pete.Hurd 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Karan Singh

If there are enough people who care articles will have been written about them in reliable sources such as national or regional newspapers. In that case they will be notable, and worthy of inclusion. Otherwise there is a presumption in favour of their privacy. Hornplease 06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

wn

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalise in Singh you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. An adminstrator will be called shortly to deal will your comments WITHOUT references.--Historian info 09:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to hijack Singh article

Editors of this "Singh" and the "Rajput" article are requested to work on the article Singh, as some people are making constant effort to hijack the article and keep it only for Sikhs saying that provide reference if Singh is a Rajput common name, they keep erasing reference that Sing is a Rajput name at all. They keep proving that Singh is a Sikh name only. I suspect these are foreign editors who have no idea what they are talking about obviously.

See this version of the article that erases all reference that Singh is a common name used by Rajputs: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Singh&oldid=153438525

Kindly provide a lot of references and facts that Singh is a Rajput name and also provide how many Rajputs may be using it as a middle or as the last name because I know Rajputs who migrated outside Rajasthan to other states many hundred years ago have lost touch and now use it now as their last name.

Kindly help to work on Singh article when you all get some time, Thanks

Atulsnischal 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. An accusation of vandalism when material has been removed with an explanation framed in terms of WP policy is a violation of WP:AGF. I suggest you do not do it again. Hornplease 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trying to censor information in this article on Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them as well as in Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.

Atulsnischal 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF. I do not wish to censor information, but we do not link to large numbers of fringe publications. Please read the Voice of India page for details; note that all these articles on VOI books were started by accounts with no purpose but starting those pages, probably paid by the press in question. Wikipedia is not the location for the promotion of fringe perspectives. The Muslim conquest is a vast topic, and these perspectives are those of a tiny minority of scholars. Thus they do not belong in that article. And as for the Goel book, there are links to other Goel book articles. There is no need for linking individually to several different articles on the VOI website: this has been done for purposes of search engine optimization of that website. Please do not reinstate the links. Hornplease 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are infact doing as visible to me is that you are systematically censoring and removing mention from wikipedia of atrocities committed against Hindus by Muslims and providing all bogus reasons for doing so. I am sure it is evident by now to many editors of wikipedia and administrators. Kindly do not censor articles please, I dont want to argue with you anymore. Atulsnischal 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. However, we try to keep it free of partisan sources and fluff. Please read the policies I have linked to here and in my last statement. You have not addressed my concerns, and are instead leveling accusations; that is unacceptable behaviour. If you cannot justify your continued reversions except with speculation about my motives, then those reversions are also unacceptable. Argument is your only option. Please also do not leave multiple messages. Hornplease 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

~~PROD~~

do not use PROD for article or project talk pages. You clearly didn't see the warning that appears when the page is previewed or saved. It isn't a useful way to express frustration at the course of the discussion. I have now had to go to the trouble of removing them. DGG (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC) sorry-- Bfigura's explanation below was correct--my apologies. DGG (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod Tags on Talk:Anti-Hinduism

Hi There. Please don't place Prod tags on talk pages as you did on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. They're only meant to be used on articles, user pages, and user talk pages. If there's any confusion, either see WP:Prod, or drop me a line. If you're trying to provide evidence that someone improperly used such a tag, use a link to the history of the article (or rev number) that shows the change instead. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

another way of indicating it is to place the "prod" between "nowiki" tags, like this : {{subt:prod|}} DGG (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD tag

Please do not use the prod tag (whether by transclusion or substitution) in an article talk page, as that will display the tag, and include it in the relevant category for proposed deletion. You can always use <nowiki>text</nowiki> tags or provide a link to the template to shown what you're talking about. Thanks. KTC 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it's already been pointed out above. KTC 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint

Hi Atul, I noticed that you have copied and pasted a complaint against User:Hornplease on several talk pages and notice boards. This is usually referred to as forum shopping on wikipedia and is deprecated. If you have concerns about the user, please discuss it with him on the related article talk page or his talk page; if that doesn't help you should use one of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, such as initiating a request for comments or leaving a comment at the admin notice board if admin action is required. However spamming multiple pages with your complaint is not the right way to proceed. I request that you yourself consolidate the discussion in one place and deleted your duplicate posts from the other pages. Also, please remember to avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Cheers. Abecedare 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm not here to suggest sides, just offer dispute resolution ideas. Well, someone else beat me to this, but anyway: You can request mediation, or the intervention of the Neutrality Project. If you feel this this user's actions are very inappropriate, feel free to make a comment at the appropriate noticeboard: the admin's incident noticeboard or Admin's Vandalism noticeboard. Also, feel free to chime in at the AfD. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

Please decist from spamming our board with notices, especially notices with overlong headings. They are hard to read and don't facilitate the functioning of the Project, Thanks! Adam McCormick 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Images for Mayo College

I have uploaded Image:Mayo College, Ajmer, India - Badge.JPG & Image:Mayo College, Ajmer, India - Coat of Arms.JPG to Wikipedia with tags. Feel free to modify the information if anything is incorrect. It may be easier to allow Image:Indian Postage Stamp issued on Mayo College, Ajmer, India in 1986.JPG to be deleted from Commons first. We will then re-upload the image to Wikipedia under {{Non-free stamp}}. I think you gave Ydalal (talk · contribs) enough information, but until this user provides more information about Image:Mayo Main Bldg.jpg, there is nothing we can do to prevent its deletion. If no response appears, we can also try e-mailing the user here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Ydalal. Although there will probably won't be immediate problems with Image:6th Earl of Mayo.jpg, I have sent Ugen64 (talk · contribs) a message to provide more information. With no knowledge of source, the image can also be questioned. If you need further assistance, please leave messages on my talk page --Jh12 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, along with others it will be nice to have the photo of the Mayo College Stamp stay permanently in the Wikipedia article on Mayo College. Also I hope we will be able to communicate with Ydalal (talk · contribs) and can retain his upload, the Image:Mayo Main Bldg.jpg, by requesting him give appropriate reasoning with his photo upload.

Atulsnischal 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [Image:Mayo Main Bldg.jpg]]

Hi, I was able to communicate with User: Ydalal (talk · contribs) by email for his above image upload for article on Mayo College. I then went ahead and edited the image page originally created by him and provided the "Source" and "Fair use rationale" as per email communication with the user. I also deleted all earlier tags which mentioned that the image will be deleted if no source is provided in a few days.

Kindly visit the image page and see what I did is admissible and make any corrections needed, see if the tag used by me is right or kindly change that too if needed. My doubt is can I like this go in and provide source and licensing info for another user after communicating with him on email?

Here is the link to the relevant image page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Mayo_Main_Bldg.jpg

Thanks again Atulsnischal 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no free version of this file is currently available, I believe this will be fine for now. But if possible, someone should take a picture of Mayo College and replace this image with a free version. I will help monitor the image should its status change. Best wishes, --Jh12 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant talk page spam

Atul, please do not add the same, unrelated content to so many talk pages. You've been doing these for quite some time, and in many cases you paste the unrelated or tangentially related text to talk pages. This is against talk page guidelines and also WP:MULTI. Please refrain from this in future. Feel free to contact me for clarification. Thank you. --Ragib 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ragib has been stalking the articles I edit on wikipedia systematically since the past many months since my interaction with him on Bengal Monitor page, I request he be given a severe warning against stalking WP:STALKING, I have made complains before

Reported user again here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thankyou Atulsnischal 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease you are systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

You have been systematically deleting mass text from related wikipedia articles

and additionally you have continuously taken to stalking me WP:STALKING, I have requested you to be warned against this at Wikipedia Administrator's Noticeboard for Complaints, for both above and specially censoring wikipedia with your biased and bogus policy arguments for doing so

Reported you here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks Atulsnischal 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"How to edit" guides

Atul, please do not keep repeating the "How to edit and insert references in WP articles" guides in article talk pages, as you did here. If you want to help new users, please provide such messages in their talk pages. If you want to improve the help and other user manuals, please work on those. But under no circumstances do talk pages require such foot-noted manuals on how to edit articles. Those belong to user manuals/guides. Thank you. --Ragib 08:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop bothering me, let someone else object, I have received no warning from any administrator on this. Please stop stalking the articles I edit, see WP:STALKING, I have complained about this several times, you have started stalking the articles I work on from our interaction at the Bengal Monitor page almost a year back. In the articles I edit you harass me on a daily basis, please stop this kindly.

Atulsnischal 08:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What stalking? Have you even read WP:STALKING or just mindlessly repeat it?

For your convenience, I'd repeat the policy mentioned there:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

So, please do read policy pages when quoting them. You are also repeatedly violating WP:MULTI by flooding talk pages with unrelated "how-to-edit" guides. I again politely request you not to flood talk pages with such content. If you have any confusion about what I meant above, please feel free to leave me a message. Thanks. --Ragib 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

STOP HARRASING ME User:Ragib DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!! and stop giving me policy arguments, you know the meaning of harassment and stalking on a daily basis or dont you Atulsnischal 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Atul, you need to cool down. All I am pointing out is that your flooding of talk page articles with how-to-edit guides, how-to-click-on-edit-button guides are redundant, unnecessary, and totally unrelated if you are doing it at article talk pages. Perhaps your good faith efforts might be very well spent if you use them to enhance the user manual, FAQs etc, or help new users. And please, read the above message. Thank you. --Ragib 08:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal, giving people hints on editing is fine, but it would be more productive and less confusing to simply link to the project page on how to format references. That is usually enough. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I also would like you to stop fillingtlak pages with such guides. And so you are aware: JzG, a.k.a. Guy, commenting above, IS an administrator, and he's telling you to stop, so there's the admin you asked for. ThuranX 12:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

File name on image too long.

This image that you uploaded [5] contains a really long file name. Could you please shorten it to something reasonable. I would do it but I don't know how. Thanks. Ebonyskye 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I notice a couple of articles rated as 'top' importance in WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Genetic erosion and genetic pollution are not top importance articles. Until you are more familiar with the project I suggest that you avoid adding importance ratings. Top is only for the most central concepts in evolution, such as natural selection. Additionally, there is no need to add the more broad 'biology' template if the other is used (and the articles are absolutely not top importance biology articles, in fact I think most authors would class them as 'low' importance for such a broad subject area.

While I'm here let me reiterate some points I believe I told you about before and some other new ones: Titles of articles and headings should always be in lower case unless they are proper nouns. See also sections should only include links not already in the article itself. Internal links should only appear once (read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context). When creating new articles, it's also good to work on related articles, especially 'parent' articles. For example before or after creating something like 'genetic pollution' you could add a subsection on it in hybridization, a broader concept, as well as any other related articles like extinction. You should also carefully look for any articles that might be very similar to the one you're thinking of creating, for example inbreeding depression and minimum viable population are very closely linked to genetic erosion. I'm not sure if it is better to have a separate article on it or not, but it's definitely the sort of thing you want to consider.

It is difficult being a new editor, but if you can learn from mistakes and get a feel for conventions it will make things a lot easier. Thanks...

Uh, one other thing. Try to use concise images names, i.e. shorter than Image:The famous Lion Capital of Ashoka preserved at Sarnath Museum, India which was adopted as National Emblem of India the Ashoka Chakra-Wheel from this was placed at the center of the National Flag of India.jpg. Richard001 09:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetic pollution

Very, very POV. I had proposed to delete this, but I've changed my mind--I think it can be saved, but only with a significant rewrite. --Pvednes 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Using extremely long section titles

Hi Atul, hope you are doing well. Please note that you have added several sections in various articles with extremely long section titles. In such cases you have added a whole sentence as a section. There is no need to use this format, rather it is best to use short descriptive section headings. I noticed that you have also reverted such a heading-fix by me without providing any reason at all. Assuming good faith, I think you did not understand why I made that edit, so I am leaving this explanation here. Feel free to ask for any clarifications if you need so. Thanks. --Ragib 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:The famous Lion Capital of Ashoka preserved at Sarnath Museum, India which was adopted as National Emblem of India the Ashoka Chakra-Wheel from this was placed at the center of the National Flag of India.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:The famous Lion Capital of Ashoka preserved at Sarnath Museum, India which was adopted as National Emblem of India the Ashoka Chakra-Wheel from this was placed at the center of the National Flag of India.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regardless of the fair use claim, could you please re-upload that image with a shorter name, such as Image:Lion capital of Ashoka? Just save the image locally, re upload it leaving all fields blank, edit both pages and copy paste the whole content (including your fair use rationale). Don't forget to update the articles links, of course :). I'd usually fix it myself but I fear messages directed to you would be sent to me :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify for fair use. The way it works is that in the USA is that, if the subject of the photo is in the public domain (in this case it is because the sculptor died more than 70 years ago), then all photos of it that present no original artistic creation are in the Public Domain also. So if this photo had been taken in the USA you could license it under {{PD-Art}}:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).

However this may not be the case for photos taken in India, see Country specific rules, unfortunately India is not in the list. If the photo is copyrighted I doubt it can be used as fair use because a free image could be found if someone went to the museum and took a picture.

I recommend you find what Indian law says and if possible upload the image under a shorter name with {{PD-Art}} as a license.Jackaranga 09:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was mistaken that license is only for 2 dimensional art Jackaranga 10:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NON-Replaceable fair use Image: Fair use rationale

{di-replaceable fair use disputed|The sculpture depicted is of iconic value specially in India and is more then 2250 years old and has no copyright, a detailed search was made for a similarly appropriate image taken from the angle which has been adopted as the National Emblem of India as described in the related articles, but no free image could be found, unless one can visit the Sarnath Museum in India and personally shoot a picture of this historical artifact / sculpture himself and that too from this particular angle and then posts it as a free image on the internet it is not possible for anybody to reasonably create a free image that can be used in wikipedia. This may also qualify as a Image with iconic status and historical importance as per Wikipedia:Fair use#Images, it depicts a famous historical sculpture more then 2000 years old from which modern India's following are adopted: National Emblem of India, National Flag of India, Ashoka Chakra, eventhough the image can be used in more articles it has only been used where it just has to be used which in this case are couple of them as mentioned on the main image page. A low resolution image has been uploaded to prevent misuse. Atulsnischal 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)}

Atulsnischal 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded again with shorter name as suggested

[[Image:Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka.jpg]]

Atulsnischal 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work Atul :)--NAHID 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting your talk page????

Hi Atulsnischal Why do you delete the content of your talk:page? Do have to hide something or what is the reason for that?--Altaileopard 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Atul has archived it here. Thanks. --Ragib 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahaaa, I was just wondering. Greetings--Altaileopard 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Headings

I've told you at least twice about headings, yet you still haven't corrected them. Headings are not capitalized. I will now correct these in the article. Please observe, and do so in future, as well as in any other articles/headings you have made. Thanks. Richard001 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding citations and references

Atul,

You are not adding citations/references properly. Please follow the guidelines in WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources to learn how to add references.
Please do not repeat the same thing ad infinitum in a variety of articles. Your recent additions of the Timur biography is a prime example ... in a single article like Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent, you added the same thing at least 4 to 5 times. Please do not do this.

For any clarification, please feel free to leave me a message. Thanks. --Ragib 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a way to mark the reference a few places in the same article and yet have it appear once in the reference list, got to figure it out Atulsnischal 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For this purpose, you can use the name parameter of a ref tag. For example, use ref name="whatever_name" during the first occurrence of the ref. For later references, just use <ref name="whatever_name" /> (without the rest of the reference), and that will be enough. Thanks. --Ragib 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on F1 hybrid

I recently noticed a contradiction in the article for F1 hybrid. You posted one of the statements in question, so I thought you might like to discuss the matter on the talk page (under "Contradiction in 'Disadvantages'"). Peppergrower 08:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I didnt post any of the statements, however I have reverted unsourced editing made by the user only identified by an IP address (not me).

Atulsnischal 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deccan traps

I don't want to get into any edit wars with you, but I noticed numerous edits to articles that I watch. At this point in time, there are numerous theories as to what lead to the demise of the Dinosaurs. The Deccan Traps are merely one of several, and, in fact, it may rank 3rd or 4th on the list of probabilities. Moreover, a CBC television program is hardly a verifiable source. There are some, but not a lot, of reliable sources in peer-reviewed journals that give some credence to the theory, but not a lot. Dinosaurs were in decline prior to the K-T boundary. Something might have pushed them to extinction, but at this time there are numerous arguments on the point. I would suggest you read some or all of the following:

WP:FRINGE -- This theory probably isn't a Fringe one, but it's close.
WP:WEIGHT -- We cannot give undue weight to theories that may be controversial.
WP:CITET --formatting of references and citations in articles that follow one format or another. Featured articles traditionally stick with one type of formatting system.

Just some thoughts for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

references

Can you annotate all those citations you are adding to the asiatic lion and related pages? At present they give a big blurb at the bottom with much redundancy. Also linking all the text to the url makes it hard to read the text. You should simplfy them to a format similar to: authors, (date) title, publication, vol, pages. And possibly link the title only. Thanks David D. (Talk) 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See my recent edits to the Asiatic Lion lion article. That is what you should be aiming for. Plus, don't use every reference you have, try and pick the important ones. A link to the zoo web page is not that useful in the context of that paragraph, so I removed that link. I noticed further down you have about eight references for one paragraph. It is almost certainly too many, again, pick out the landmark references, that is what the reader want to see. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just been fixing the references in the asiatic lions articles and noticed there is a massive amount of redundancy between those articles. Can we try and merge some bits and make them all unique? Specifically there needs to be less redundancy between the folowing articles Asiatic_Lion_Reintroduction_Project, Kuno_Wildlife_Sanctuary, Asiatic_Lion and Gir Forest National Park. Thanks David D. (Talk) 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I worked on those four articles to make them less redundant. David D. (Talk) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Genetic erosion

You can't just revert back without some kind of comment on the talk page. Please address the comments I made on the talk page or I will go back in and fix it all again. Without your input it is likely to look similar to the last version I edited. David D. (Talk) 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you kindly stop stalking me on wikipedia and read WP:STALKING and stop removing mass text from articles I have contributed on your whims and fancies, I request you to kindly do random editing and contributions on wikipedia articles that genuinly interest you, not stalk my articles like you have been doing since last many months.

-- Atulsnischal (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking? It's not stalking to correct bad referencing and trying to make constructive comments. By the way, I'm a biologist, why would these articles not genuinely interest me? David D. (Talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that several other users have independantly come to the same conclusion with regard to your contributions at Genetic pollution. None of this is aimed at you personally. Your writing is the target of the criticism. It is not balanced and reads like activism SPAM. This is especially apparent when the exact same text keeps popping up in multiple articles. David D. (Talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see Talk:High-yielding_variety. Its the same cut n' paste job. Why should this be regarded as anything other than spamming wikipedia with your POV? David D. (Talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see your cutn' pasted text in:

Are there more? David D. (Talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SINGH

Jai Bhavani

I have done my best to try and find time to improve the Singh article. I was once a student of Dr. McCleod and Dr. O'Connell in University for Indian studies. I am also a member of the Royal houses of Nabha and Patiala, but I am a Rajput. I have tried to correct as much as my time could permit, please see to it that someone does not remove the additions since it clearly now states that Rajput were the first to use the name Singh and the Sikhs only began using Singh after 1699, and this is irrefutable historically.

Chauhan Gorkhali (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jai Bhavani

thanks for contributing.

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING

How can you expect to not have problems with the POV section that you have cut and pasted into multiple articles? At present you have refused every opportunity to discuss this matter and just revert my edits accusing me of stalking. This is hopeful on your part, and you seem to think that if you say it enough it will become true. If you keep refusing to dicuss this issue i will remove that section from every article you have placed it. It reads like a political scree and is not neutral enough for wikipedia. You need to discuss how this section can be made more neutral, an opportunity that hs been present to you on at least two different talk pages. I am within my rights to remove this section if you choose to ignore all discussion. David D. (Talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already made it neutral enough, i spent days on it, your POV accusation is based on previous POV comments on Genetic pollution discussion page which came when I started the article and wrote two lines on it, i spent a week on it afterwards finding and using references and nuteral enough language, it states the truth. Definitely you have stalked me to my other articles over the months so there you go, I am busy now with other stuff in life. Kindly dont stalk me and bother me and do some constructive contributions instead to wikipedia. Please dont leave comment after comment for me on my talk page it has been bothering me, you are definitely causing stress, and my WP:STALKING accusation for you holds true.

Atulsnischal (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your stalking accusations are silly. I have been a long time contributor to GMO and biology topics here. Why shouldn't i take an interest in genetic pollution type articles? Why do you think I even noticed your edits in the first place? Show me evidence of my edits not being contructive. Almost all my edits have been to help your articles grow. You just can't see it because in this case you happen to disagree with my opinion (one that others share too). Where were these discussions and collaborative editing that led you to improve the POV of this text? To date, I have seen no evidence that you have been willing to receive independant input on this topic. David D. (Talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING

So by changing the title of this topic and the subsequent removal of the dialog is your way of informing us you are unwilling to discuss any on the content you have inserted into mulitple articles? Your input would be welcome but not necessary. David D. (Talk) 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen I have Archived our previous conversation - it is in my talk page Archives [6], your edits are based on and motivated with WP:STALKING me on Wikipedia which you have been doing since the last year or so, outcome can not be healthy and I dont want to argue with you. Please do not go to my contributions page for following me from there to articles I have been working on, that is called stalking. Please dont get into ego clashes and personality clashes with people, just find articles randomly for contributing.

Hope it makes sense, also I did inform that I am busy with other stuff in life.

Best wishes, hope you will leave me alone. Atulsnischal (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I found your contributions in mulitple articles because the text is identical POV. You literally copied and pasted the same text into mutliple articles without tailoring it to the respective subject. I found it with the search function, not from your contributions list. Regardless, addressing the same POV issues on mulitple pages that you happen to participate in is not stalking. If you disagree there are many avenues to report my supposed stalking. I welcome a review of this from independent users. I will not, however, allow your passive aggressive reverts to stand unless you are willing to discuss the content dispute on the respective talk pages. David D. (Talk) 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR on Genetic Pollution.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hardyplants (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your mass edits and changing the whole nature the entire definition and scope of the well referenced article Genetic pollution is amounting to pure vandalism. Also as noted elsewhere before in the hybridization article you have a blind pro Hybridzation POV. dear "HARDYPLANTS" do not vandalize again you will definitely be reported. Lets contribute and help articles excell and not be a deletionist always.

Best wishes

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALKING

It is very counterproductive to revert to your previous version of genetic pollution. There has been a lot of discussion about this. You reverted many incremental edits frpm several contributors. You cannot own the article this way. Discuss the revisions you wish to make first, especially given you are in the minority here. i cannot believe you reject every single improvement to the article since your last edit. Many of the edits were improving grammar and reformating the references. The fact you reverted all those too suggests you did not review the changes before reverting. David D. (Talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop stalking the articles I work on, you have been going on like this for more then one year. Atulsnischal (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this before. Start an RFC's on my editing habits if you find this troubling but I will not stop editing the articles on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I now view your edits as becoming disruptive. I will continue to revert any mass revert you do on the genetic pollution article, within the 3RR rule, if you do not join the discussion. I'm sure the others in involved in the discussion will do the same too. You are welcome to discuss it on the talk page. If you you wish to get more community input feel free to file a complaint with regard to my editing. See here: WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. I hope you will join the discussion. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Atulnischal, I've been watching what's happening at genetic pollution. Can you please make sure not to fall foul of WP:OWN and particularly, WP:3RR? Please consider this a warning, and try to be a good example. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've been asked whether you would like to discuss possible changes on the appropriate talk page, where two editors are already engaged in discussion. I think you should get involved in that discussion. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#David_D._is_stalking_me. David D. (Talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Genetic pollution is a regular "scientific term"

Hi there. These large scale edits you are making to promote the activist term "genetic pollution' are a serious NPOV problem. Can we resolve this through discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, Genetic pollution is a regular "Scientific term", find out....., start from here this version of the article [7], edits from here on just desecrate the article and are nothing but vandalism, mass slashing of article to 2 or 3 lines and wanting to erase it completely by merging it with Introgression etc.

Improve the article if you can in time, thanks.

Examples of usage of term "Genetic pollution"

“Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels, he warned. By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is, he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be what we today call a wolf.” from Italy's Wild Dog Winning Darwinian Battle, By Philip M. Boffey, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accessed 16 December 2007
Butler D. (1994). Bid to protect wolves from genetic pollution. Nature 370: 497

Atulsnischal (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Singh

Discussion posted on the talk page of Singh article. Kindly continue discussion there. And I request again please do not vandalize the Singh article with personal POVs.

Best wishes all for the comming New Year

Atulsnischal (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atulsnischal,

Harrybabbar is back wiht his POVs and vandalism. I have reverted it back to your version, but I think you should also keep an eye on the article.

If the vandalism goes on, then there is no real point in trying to build it into something academically worthwhile.

Let me know what you think.

Gorkhali (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atulsnischal,

It would be nice if you also began working on the Singh article again since I can't do it alone. I came to the article orginally after seeing your message about is being "Hijacked". Please do come be and keep an eye that it remains a NPOV article.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uttarayana

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your changes, specifically the additions you made to the dangers section. It seemed like basically repeating what was there so I took it out. If you want to keep it, please feel free to revert.

Thanks! Ubardak (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kite

Thanks for adding the section on Manja, but you are duplicating information already on the page Manja. In Wikipedia, it is enough to have a link to a page with more information. The encyclopedia would become useless if every term was expanded with the content of linked pages. Ask at the WP:Help Desk if you need more explanation. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fighter kite

You placed what I feel is biased reference to the negative aspects of the sport. You introduced the term manja when this is a language specific name. There are many other names in many other languages for cutting line, and I have made a section on the Fighter kite page to reflect this. Until the word for abrasive kite fighting cutting line is adopted into the english language please refrain from using this on the English version of the kite fighting page.

I found your adjective "deadly" in front of manja, to be quite un-encyclopedic. I would assume this is in use by opponents to the use of cutting line, and I have removed it. I have also removed specific incidents of accidents as they are also un-encyclopedic, in its place, I have created a controversy and accident section at the end of the article. Accidents happen in any sport, and there are laws and organizations created to make any sport as safe as possible. I think this belongs at the end of the article as it takes away from the the true intent of the article, Fighter Kite. Which I hope to describe the sport of kite fighting, the actual kites used, the rules for competition, etc. When you fill up 1/4 of the entire article on the negative aspect, you have not only attacked manja, but all forms of kite fighting. This is not just done in Pakistan and India, and it is not just done with cutting line flown from roof tops in an overpopulated large city. I agree that improper use, or selfish and uncaring people have caused a few accidents. You could say this about any sport, soccer(football) huge numbers of riots, property damage, and death. Auto racing, the same. Even acts as trivial as walking down the street surly cause the deaths of millions of micro organism, let alone just the act of breathing.

Kite fighting is a very old sport, with not much recognition in the western world. And new forms of it are emerging and evolving as we speak. I do not know if this is your "cause" to outlaw all forms of kite fighting, or flying. But I assure you that I will continue to monitor the article and remove un-encyclopedic entries. I hope this doesn't turn into a moderated article, as the article is very new, and still needs a lot of work.

Also, I have noticed that you have added a lot of geographically specific information. Maybe we should break this up into geographical areas, or by country. I have deliberately tried to keep this to a minimum as most of the words used in other countries have not been adopted into the English language. I had added small sections on names of kites in the native language. But since this the English version, I think that an ethnocentric view of kite fighting is not appropriate. But I do not think it is the intent of the English Wikipedia to become the translator for all foreign language, nor do I think that it will be used to define what will be added to the English language.

Scott Beall —Added by Scott Beall(talk) 12:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Rajputs

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sikh Rajputs appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sikh Rajputs, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In addition to the above,

I have noted that you have reverted the edits by Mspraveen. You have not provided the citations requested for over one year therefore editors had the right under wikipolicies to remove them.

This is strongly encouraged on Wikipedia to stop unveriable content addition.

The RFC decision is to set a date for the references to be provided or the article's assertions will be removed. RFC members also made mention of the articles total deletion which although servere will be considered, as at present, not a single reference is available for any assertion of the articles main topic or its contentious points. You have a week to provide these or this will go ahead.

I advise you to be civil and not engage in edit wars and otther personal attacks to users. Please remain professional and civil.--Shanti bhai (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Sikh Rajputs, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mspraveen (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

get your bearing right on wikipedia

i am not doing a PHD thesis here nor do i have the time, nor is this wikipedia a place to publish ones PHD thesis or double PHD thesis or Triple PHD Thesis................. the whole world can write articles and better editors can come along and make the article even much better, if refrences are missing ten others can come in the following years or decades and find all the references and list them etc., i worte the basic stuff as i read it elsewhere along in life, others can help make this article better in time and add and edit text and provide references............... i am not doing a PHD here on this topic nor do i have any time............... i am only seeing people willing to demolish the article but not willing to make it better.................... let other editors come along as and when and develop the article betetr................. thats it, i purposely put the article content on talk page for others to be able to refer for research............... do not edit my comments or article text from talk page............. do not manipulate the talk page..........

Do not attack my user talk page eather

Atulsnischal (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly see my reply on Talk:Sikh Rajputs. Mspraveen (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Sikh Rajputs, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mspraveen (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Sikh Rajputs, you will be blocked from editing. Mspraveen (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sikh Rajputs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mspraveen is Vandalising the article constantly, i posted his comments from my talk page to article talk page. He has voilated the 3rr himself, he is constantlt censoring the article and vandalising it.

Atulsnischal (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What he is doing is not vandalism. The two of you disagree about the content of the article, but that is not vandalism. It is a content dispute, and incorrectly accusing each other of vandalism will not excuse this edit war. He has been warned as well, and you will be blocked if you revert again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sikh Rajputs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mspraveen is Vandalising the article constantly, i posted his comments from my talk page to article talk page. He has voilated the 3rr himself, he is constantlt censoring the article and vandalising it.

Atulsnischal (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What he is doing is not vandalism. The two of you disagree about the content of the article, but that is not vandalism. It is a content dispute, and incorrectly accusing each other of vandalism will not excuse this edit war. He has been warned as well, and you will be blocked if you revert again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating our civility policy with this edit. Please take this time to think of more constructive, polite ways to discuss your opinions with other users. You may resume editing after the block expires, but any further incivility or disruption will immediately result in longer blocks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

cool

Atulsnischal (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

As soon as your block ended, you immediately went to work undoing others' edits, calling them "censorship", and posting this statement directed at another user on an article talk page. Since 24 hours didn't work, you are now blocked for 72 hours. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain in as much detail as much as possible how can i make a complaint about your actions and to whom and where. What policies are you interpreting or as I suspect misinterpreting. If possible do not get personal on me and get stuck on me personally, I have also noticed you have been manipulating the talk page of [[[Sikh Rajputs]] also, let others in the complaint department handle me from now on, I am feeling quite harassed and discriminated against by you.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You've repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TALK, and WP:EW. I told you that any further incivility or disruptive editing would result in a longer block, and you acknowledged that warning here. You can ask for a review of this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} at the bottom of this page, but considering your recent actions it's unlikely to be approved. For the same reason, you'd probably only be embarrassing yourself by reporting the block to WP:ANI, but you're free to do so after the block expires. I gave you some leeway after the 3RR report was filed against you, but at some point enough is enough.

I assure you, this is not personal. Mspraveen was given the same initial warning... but he was able to stop edit warring and work according to Wikipedia's rules, so he didn't need to be blocked. If you can do the same thing when this block is over, you have a clean slate as far as I am concerned. And you may want to take another look at the history of Sikh Rajputs; the only edit I've ever made to it was to partially restore one of your edits.[8] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sikh Rajputs

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh Rajputs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh Rajputs. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mspraveen (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Please shorten your statement at the above deletion discussion. Articles For Deletion is a place to explain how the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. The AFD is not a forum to argue about the subject itself. Save that stuff for talk pages. The other participants in the discussion have every bit as much knowledge as you do about Sikhism, and probably quite a bit more knowledge about Wikipedia policy. All you need to do is say "Keep" and then briefly show how it meets our guidelines, without any extra opinions. By the way, I already discussed the matrimonial ads you are referring to in my own statement. They were worth mentioning but they are not reliable sources so they do not count toward keeping the article.

Nobody is arguing so far, and calling other people's opinions "absolute rubbish" isn't helpful. It would be better if you say nothing at all. Please cut your initial statement down to a few sentences. If someone asks a question, then you can answer them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

this is what I am saying you manipulate my comments.

Atulsnischal (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

It seems you are unable to edit Wikipedia without persistent disruption and personal attacks, so you have been blocked indefinitely. Indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent, but you will need to demonstrate a much better understanding of the rules before you will be permitted to edit again. If you can't do that, it will be permanent. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you guys are gtting into ego hassels with me, i have no time ok, get some some growing up to do i guess, take your time.

Atulsnischal (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atulsnischal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have contributed to several articles and several hundred hours on wikipedia, I was blocked and then was elevated in quick succession to permanent block by an administrator who was already an existing member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism, and i was blocked over some heated arguments then related to one single article the Sikh Rajputs (under Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism). I feel the blocking admin was unfair and he was from within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism so couldn't be impartial. Anyways quite some time has passed and heated emotions have been overcome by better sense now. I have made some useful contributions to wikipedia since: A) From 04:11, 30 September 2008 - To - 17:56, 13 October 2008 - from the IP address: 71.72.18.229 (talk) and B) From 13:29, 14 August 2008 - To - 19:21, 8 November 2008 - from the IP address: 99.235.98.169 (talk) I am also giving more time to understanding wikipedia rules to contribute constructively. Today I was trying to create the "Indradhanush" article but Wikipedia software wouldn't let me create a new article as I have to sign in and my user name is blocked permanently as of now. I will like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia under my own user name and not from anonymous IP addresses. Thanks

Decline reason:

You have been unblocked already. This request is moot. — Sandstein 22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Atulsnischal has shown genuinely constructive contributions but does have biases (don't we all). I have unblocked you on the condition that you become more collaborative when dealing with others that disagree with you own position.

The key here is to 1) listen and learn, with respect to formating (especially references), 2) listen and collaborate with those that disagree with your own opinion and 3) try to have fun and don't take criticism to heart.

Request handled by: David D. (Talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David,

Like we have discussed before others are always welcome to contribute constructively and improve on my and other contributors contributions without censoring it, editors with genuine interest will eventually come along and improve an article and help out with what they can and are comfortable with like formatting references etc. that you have requested before too, in time other interested editors do improve articles, correct spelling, grammar, remove POV, research and quote references...... there is no rule that one contributor should deliver a finished thesis on Wikipedia. It is am ongoing valuntry process with multiple editors helping out.

Editors will generally find and better an article they like, eventually, an impatient editor with a big ego can not bully others what they need done and force others to comply, or threaten them or their account (if some have special admin privileges for instance).

So I just wish everyone well and lets just contribute what we can and what our time, level of education and skills lets us.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, no body can be bullied or forced to deliver a completed thesis.

When because of some personality clashes and online bullying if some editors become aware that their constant tracking of another's work and picking up arguments on each article he or she is contributing makes the other editor unduly distressed and disrupts his normal life then one should make it a point not to clash again or stalk that editors work and leave it to other thousands of editors on wikipedia at present and thousands that will come along in future, to collaborate and help such editors with whom you are personally finding it difficult to collaborate.

But thanks again as in this particular case you were not involved with the Sikh Rajput article in question for which the block on my account was made, but please remember I just contribute what I can. I hope you wont stalk my contributions as I have complained before for a year or two now and try to force me to do anything your way.

It is best not to get personal and we should all keep our dealings to the particular situation at hand. There is no fun when editors have to worry about bullys stalking them for years on and their work online on a daily basis.

If you saw the situation here and did what you thought right in good faith, thanks.

But if there is any politics involved here that from now on you can have your way with me and threaten me forever that you can always block my account again, then we have a problem.

Kindly leave it up to a Administrator who is impartial.

Maybe after all you feel you just did the right thing and in that case please excuse me, but i am sure you can forgive me as we did clash before several times and since I have stopped contributing anything major to those articles.......

Any way thanks again and best wishes

Atulsnischal (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't stalk. i do check my watchlist and related articles. Anyway, enjoy your editing. David D. (Talk) 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)