User talk:Deepakshenoy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My name is Deepak Shenoy, and I'm very new to Wikipedia. But do leave your comments, and I'll get back to you.
Contents |
[edit] India related links
Welcome!
Hello Deepakshenoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content | ||
Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions |
--Pamri • Talk 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding IIPM Controversy article and other edits
Many of the sources for the edits cited on the article are at blogsites maintained by web users. Such sources cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, Citing sources and Neutral Point of View carefully. Clean up the article if you can. You also removed a whole paragraph on Narendra Modi without citing reasons as to why on the talk page. In case you make major changes in the articles you should mention the reasons behind the changes on the talk page. Maintaining a Neutral Point of View is an essential and mandatory requirement on Wikipedia. Regards. --Andy123(talk) 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Anirudh, the controversy is half about the blogs. You'll notice that even the mainstream media mention the blogs. The talk archives of the IIPM page discuss the policy issue. Largely, in my view, the blogs are important as sources, as even the mainstream media has acknowledged in the linked articles. Contentious views still prevail on Varna's and Thalassa's blogs: I think you're right here and will remove them.
- Note here that Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis will continue to be referred - they're quotable as primary sources because we are referring to them (and not using their blogs as secondary sources)
- The Controversy article in itself is NPOV, or should be. I'll try and improve it as we go along. Remember that Wikipedia's policies are "suggestions", not enforced policy - so we can override parts of them if it makes sense to the overall goal of Wikipedia.
- What's this Narendra Modi business you refer to? I had no idea that page existed, and that's not even my IP. You probably mean someone else. Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am extremely sorry about the other warning. I was under stress, as I was dealing with multiple vandalisms, that day. About the IIPM matter, I am still looking into the article. Thank you for replying and your contributions to Wikipedia. I'd suggest that you sign your article by leaving ~~~~ tildes on talk pages. Cheers and thank you! --Andy123(talk) 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The other sources are very reliable, but I am still concerned about the neutrality of the article. Hope you can help us out. Cheers! --Andy123(talk) 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'd like to help with the NPOV issue but in my view the article is already NPOV. There may be some minor cleanup points, but if you get into the page's discussion we may be able to work something out together. Oh and sorry about forgetting to sign off! Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Although, I must tell you that blogs are advisably not used as sources for information because they are primary sources and personal biases are present in them. Anyone with an account can publish his/her thoughts over the internet. We need solid sources, which can only be retrieved from websites of repute. Kindly review Wikipedia's policy on Reliable sources. Click here. Regards, --Andy123(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- In this case blogs are only used as primary sources. The blogs in question are PART of the controversy (Rashmi got derogatory remarks on her blog - preserved today too - and Gaurav's blog entries created a ruckus at IBM) These are the subjects of the businessworld articles, and Businessworld is a reputed magazine; I put only Rashmi's and Gaurav's blogs in, since they are primary sources here (the blogs are the subject, not their content).Deepakshenoy 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, the link you've provided explicitly allow the use of blogs as primary sources about themselves. That makes sense. For example, if the only source for the IIPM's alleged legal notice to Gaurav was Gaurav's blog, we can write "Gaurav Sabnis wrote on his blog that he received a legal notice from IIPM", but not "Gaurav Sabnis received a notice from IIPM". — Ravikiran 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appreciation
Barnstar | ||
For watching the IIPM article and working hard in keeping it NPOV. I went through the talk page discussions. You have been outstanding. Keep up the good work. I am amazed the controversy section survived all this time. :) You and Ravikiran deserve kudos for that. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] IIPM article
Hi Deepak,
I followed your blog and reached here. If you have any troubles with the IIPM article to maintain a neutral point of view, please contact me. A better suggestion would be to post the request at the Indian Notice Board, where at least 20 Indian administrators and many more Wikipedians keep a watch. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- A clarification of sorts. The Indian Noticeboard is for all Indian Wikipedians, and not just administrators. I specifically mentioned the admins so as to reassure you that you will get good and neutral response if you post a message there. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)