User talk:Newageindian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Compliance with Wikipedia rules
Your comment, you both are over enthusiatic to edit, delete and vandalise this article as much as possible claiming "good faith". I are sure that you both are working hand in hand in this process of vandalising an article by bending policies of wikipedia [1] is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.
- I disagree. When some editor deletes the content with malicious intent, it is important to stop vandalism.
- I think you miss the point. Yes, it's important to keep valuable content in an article. But there are right ways and wrong ways to do so. You can do all the edits you want to articles and still follow the three rules I cited. Those three rules in no way prevent you from standing up for what you believe in. What the rules do say is that commenting in certain ways about other editors - whether what you say is really true or not - is not acceptable.
Moreover, your statement, in the same section, that Ireland is a country where 5% people marry is sheer nonsense. In fact, 57% of those aged 15 years and over in the Republic of Ireland were married in 2003.[2] And many of the 43 percent that were single are young and will eventually marry. Please do not add completely false statements to article discussions.
- I agree and I apologize for that false figure. The real figure is 5 per 1000 people.Newageindian 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Correct, that is the annual marriage rate. And you're correct that in Ireland the overall marriage rate is quite low. If the average lifespan is 80 years (I'm pretty sure, without looking, that that's about right), then if the marriage rates stays at 5 per 1000, only 40% of the population would end up married.
Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles, not to make comments to other editors. If you have problems with the behavior of other editors (and, generally, it is not appropriate to discuss or speculate on motives), post to the user's talk page, as I am doing here, not to the talk page of an article.
- Thanks for this information as I am a Wiki Newbie.Newageindian 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally, your request that I want Indian editors to do the editing and I am sure thats not unreasonable is in fact totally inappropriate. Wikipedia grants to no person any special privileges for editing, per WP:OWN, nor is any class or group of people authorized in any way to exclude others from editing. If you don't believe that other editors are, for the most part, reasonable people with whom you can reach agreement on article contents, then go elsewhere. If you are willing to work with others, regardless of their background, then please stay and help improve the encyclopedia. John Broughton | Talk 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it is inappropriate to ask for "Indian Editors". But, editors have to exercise some patience and go beyond google search to evaluate an article. The two editors were clearly vandalising the article just because they disagree not with the article, but the goals of certain Indian Social Organisation.Newageindian 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I ask that you not comment about the motives of other editors. That is not acceptable under Wikipedia's rules. You should focus on the edits, not the editors. John Broughton | ♫ 03:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Compliance with Wikipedia rules - further discussion
Thank you for your civil responses, above. As your are new here, I hope that you will consider some further changes in order to work constructively with others.
You posted Both Fisherqueen and Cailil are not Indians and they have little knowledge on the subject and still, due in shear intolerance, they deleted large number of citations and content from the article with malicious intent to push it towards an Afd.[3]
Again, I ask you to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. What you wrote would have been acceptable (not really constructive, but at least not violating the rules) if it had been ''Both Fisherqueen and Cailil are not Indians and I believe they have little knowledge on the subject. They have deleted large number of citations and content from the article.
I hope you see the difference between the two - why the second is okay, but the first (your version) is not. Words like shear intolerance and malicious intent do not lead to any kind of working relationship between editors. The belief here - and, perhaps strangely, it does work almost all of the time - is that editors with different views can actually reach consensus about articles if they follow Wikipedia rules.
I'm going to add a standard "welcome" section to this page, below. I really suggest that you stop editing until you've had a chance to read the rules that I've cited, above, and the rules mentioned in the welcome, and then thought about them. I hope that after you have a chance to do so, you'll see that you can still follow the rules while making changes to articles (that put or keep valuable content in them), but that there are certain things about the way you argue that just can't be done here without getting into trouble.
Again, thanks for the civil response, and I hope that this initial difficulties can be worked out. John Broughton | Talk 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Newageindian, 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
- 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- John Broughton | Talk 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject India
Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
- Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kris (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
Sorry to bother you again, but another request: please use edit summaries, per Wikipedia:Edit summary. It's not mandatory, but other editors really apprecdiate it! Thanks. 68.48.230.9 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for this info. In fact, I have never filled an edit summary as I was not aware how to do it.Newageindian 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Necessity of Independent Dowry death article
I was just doing some work listed in Category:Articles_to_be_merged; I don't have any expertise in this area, or indeed any knowledge at all. I certainly won't stand in your way. There didn't seem to be any talk about the merge in either talk page so I didn't think it was controversial.
Since Bride burning is a pretty substantial article, I would suggest not swapping the redirect, but just undoing the merge and expanding the Dowry death article on its own, leaving two separate articles. Rpresser 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you.
Just a note to express appreciation for the civility of your comments at Talk:Save Indian Family. As I may have said before, it can be frustrating when editors don't agree, but one of the things that has made Wikipedia successful is the ability of most editors, most of the time, to focus on the articles, not personalities. So again, I appreciate your focusing on the content of the article. John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 1 - January 2007
|
|
|
