User talk:Nameisnotimportant

Welcome to my talk page

Please put down a few words. Anything is fine.

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nameisnotimportant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

explain

Cant do this on the article talk page. The vote isn't about whether Gandhi was a mahatma, but is about whether Mahatma Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is more common, nothing to do with any ideology. So what ever your ideology, you might vote for Wikipedia accuracy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yogesh. I have posted my views. There is enough already on that page to show that Mahatma is the right title. I don't think there is anything to add more on that. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On India project there is a members link, all you need to do is to put your name in a list there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandhi table

Please reduce each point you make in the table on the Talk:MKG page to one sentence of reasonable length; also do not sign. See instructions below the table. The table is a summary not a place to make general points or lengthy rebuttals. The Google book search for "Gandhi," by the way, is a binary search that excludes Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, ... and all the other better-known Gandhis that could be mentioned in books. Pretty much all the references there are to MKG, not some random person with last name Gandhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

Hi, is there any reason why you are not posting chronologically in the section on the Kurmi talk page? It becomes extremely confusing for people if you do not follow the basic conventions. Yes, there are exceptions but this is not one of them: there is no need at all for your comment to be inserted into a block written by someone else and with more written after it. Please could you undo your last edit so that you comment does in fact appear in chronological order. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing each source at place where it is mentioned is better, easier to comprehend and better to debate about them. It is very difficult to talk about each source referenced at the bottom. Is this acceptable? This way any doubts can be cleared at the location it exists. Is this OK with you. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It breaks up a long list and there is a reason why I dropped those quotes in quickly, in order to form a list. What I should have done was number them as that would make it simpler for people to comment below the list. I'll go back in and do that now. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbered them now. You do not need to comment on each source. I know that some are better than others and, believe me, I am respected for my ability to sift through sources. I just grabbed the first ones off my list, double-checked them (I'd read them previously) & banged them in there, regardless of whether they were the best ones from my list or not. There are that many possible sources that this really is not a discussion, despite what MangoWong might think. You can pretty much do what Qwyrxian did: name the ones that you think are most suitable (if any). I can always shove another few hundred sources or so in there if something goes very wrong. Obviously, if after reading them all you come to the conclusion that they are indeed all unsuitable then I will have to do just that. - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Numbering should help. This discussion on Kurmi is getting interesting, but it is still a mystery to me for how long I will find this topic engaging. I will move the comments as soon as I get time. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Talkback

Hello, Nameisnotimportant. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod

Please retract your latest comment at ANI. It is plain wrong. Go to James Tod and you will find that every single citation is linked as per WP:CITE. Your accusations are now going beyond tedious and into the realms of nastiness. Although, for what it is worth, there is no requirement to link to an online source. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree to your opinion. You seem to have different standards in almost every other situation. How can your claims be judged if the citations can't be seen? Show me the page where Frietag mentions such things. If it's not online, just like the purana, it's not acceptable. Didn't you say so? One more thing, Hindus believe Mira bai was married to Rana Kumba. It is beyond me why you have started to ignore anything that states otherwise. So spare me the honour and do some soul searching. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is LINKED. Look in the bibliography. This is a standard citation method for Wikipedia. Look, I have just realised that you are pretty new here. My advice to you is to slow down with the accusations until you have a bit more experience. Carry on as you are doing and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of someone's temper (not mine, but someone who really isn't in the mood to put up with such stuff when ever it may be that you accuse them). - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I am not falsely accusing anyone here. It is beyond me why will someone go to great lengths to prove that James Tod was useless, as mentioned on his talk page. Can you point to any online link that shows that Freitag page that you cited. You don'tt accept any source that were brought forth and that did not have an online copy. I have no reasons to accept such claims about James Tod's reputation. Why change the rules now? Will you hence forth consider sources that have a different fact stated, other than what you mentioned, and that are not online?

Saying things like "generally consider Shudra" is as good as stating "are Shudra". Don't you think that a more neutral sentence such as "there are different opinions about varna of xyz caste - then you can point to the 'Varna Section', would be more appropriate? Please let me know. I have nothing against anyone, but I don't like things to be painted in a particular colour when it's a grey area. I have seen your work, and I can vouch that you have made really great contributions, but somehow you have made a very firm opinion on certain topics and are not open to any other idea. Don't you think you went to a great lenghts to disapprove of any other opinion on the topics. Why are you feeling that everyone is out there to get you? No one has that much of time. Why should that be? This is a great place to collaborate, and I will be happy to listen to all good ideas. I read your article on Churchill Machine Tools Company, and I am really impressed.

I may not respond to further comments as I have a flight to catch, but I will read what you post on my talk page. Anyways, it's nice to know you. Take care. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(just a semi-random other user jumping in here after seeing info on this posted elsewhere). Nameisnotimportant, to view the Freitag, go to James Tod. Go down to the section called "Bibliography". Right there, on the second line, is the Freitag book. If you click on that link, you'll be taken to Google Books. From there, about 1/3 the way down the page, there is a link that says "Preview this book" *and here's a direct link if you want to jump there immediately). If you click on that, you can scroll through Frietag. It looks like about 80% or more of the book is online (I just thumbed through randomly). So it appears that the Freitag is available, and you can look at any of the specific points included on the Tod page. As a side note, you'll note that there are several other references there; all of them seem to agree that Tod is at best spotty, and at worst biased and unreliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking a long break

I have some stuff that has come up, and I won't be able to contribute to WP for a long duration( something in terms of months). If you want to leave any message, please do so. I may still be able to read them. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of articles that need attention. A great way to destress. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I too have a similar impression. I think the frustrating situation prevails because of just 3/4 bad apples. Once they mellow down, the atmosphere is likely to become completely normal. Others are not bad. I think they are quite good actually.-MangoWong (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't get frustated. Read and reread wp:TENDENTIOUS, also wp:GREATWRONGS. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, maybe I did not express myself clearly enough. I was trying to say is that the atmosphere around India related articles does not look right to me. There seems to be an atmosphere of fear around these articles. I have looked into other parts of WP. This atmosphere is not there. This atmosphere seems to have developed in recent years only. Some of you seem to think that it is a WP wide phenomenon. I don’t think so. I think the atmosphere around here is bad because of just 3 or 4 bad apples. The rest of the biggies look fine to me. I do not object to anyone editing an article just because of the eds background. But presently, an entire topic of articles is being owned by a gang of 3 bullies, which consists of one catalyst and two sidekicks. They are just random googlers who do not have any familiarity with the subject. Nobody else is being allowed to edit those articles. The articles are stinking. This is not OK. I am nod saying that your above comment, or your on the kurmi talk page (which was addressed to me) are “damp”. I am nod saying that you refrain from making such comments. I am saying that if you do not think of this bad atmosphere as an issue, you need not do anything. Please do not take my comment otherwise. I appreciate your efforts. You may think about some situations as “volatile”, but I don’t. Only that damp comments can hinder the effort to free this area of the fearful atmosphere. You need not do anything. There are just 3 or 4 bad apples. After that is dealt with, you will find an entirely new atmosphere conducive to collegial editing and encyclopedia building. Please try to keep in mind and remember what I said even if some situation looks “volatile” to you. I can do it on my own.-MangoWong (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your reasons for taking a break. As I have been indicating, the atmosphere is severe. It can have a severe effect on folks unused to such atmosphere. I had noticed that you were saying something about infoboxes at the ANI. As far as I know, there is no set vetting process required for putting up any infoboxes. So, anyone can put up any infobox they want. I don't see much of a value in such infoboxes. I like to form my own opinion based on the particular user's edits and comments only. Looking at the edits and comments of some of the folks who do have infoboxes...... Actually, to my way of thinking, there is no need for such infoboxes. Things become easily obvious from edits and comments alone. I do not say anything about your edits and comments because I think I am unqualified to make an assessment for your contributions. I think I have known some fine scholars on WP and have participated in some exhilarating discussions with them. But invariably, I find their userpages to be without any infoboxes saying it. Why does one need state the obvious? Actually, I think there are some disadvantages to putting up such infoboxes. If you are seriously considering putting up one, I think you may want to know my detailed view on it in beforehand. Looking at some of your comments, I have the most unmistakable impression that you have an excellent grasp of such issues. I have known very few users about whom I could say the same. (I am speaking only about the ones which I have seen). As such, I was looking forward to other people's sense of sourcing issues would also improve (by having discussions with you). I have also been looking for a particular quote from one particular source and I had the impression that you might probably be in a position to help me in that regard. It is about some other, unrelated article. But since you are busy now, I don't think it would be proper for me to bother you with some silly request of mine. I have noticed that the catalyst with sidekicks is happy because they have been able to drive you away. Actually, it seems to me that they have driven away hundreds of users and also caused blocks on scores of others, are experts at harassing others with warnings, long winded arguments, irrelevant comments, severe ad hominem attacks, etc. etc. etc. also know how to obtain blocks for their opponents at ANIs..... Anyway. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I have also taken a look at some other caste articles. All of them stink equally and are in complete contradiction with the reality in India. They have no idea what they are writing about, and where the center lies on various points. Those articles were also continuously having people who are blowing their tops. These guys are just pouring S***** S***** S***** S***** on anyone and everyone by using as many refs as they can find from googlebooks.-MangoWong (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to investigate Frietag's view of James Tod. Besides the bio, he has also contributed a chapter on Tod in another book. His view of Tod is nowhere nearly what the article uses Frietag for. Your find was absolutely correct. I am having difficulty finding the impulse to fix the article on Tod because looking at it seems to make me feel sick.-MangoWong (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I may be risking my life, but I am back. :) Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named - just a courtesy note since it mentions a thread at Talk:Kurmi in which you have had some involvement. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Keyboard

My KB is having issues. So I may be slow to respond. Please spare me. It takes time to wake up from slumber and catch things up. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, my keyboard is up to its tricks too...-MangoWong (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Its up with new tricks now.-MangoWong (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Eh, even more.-MangoWong (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)