User talk:Maheshkumaryadav: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Can you resolve a couple of queries, please?

1. Why did you use the terms "Whistleblower Protection Act" when the piece of legislation appears to be called the "Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010" ? I realise that the real title is a bit of a mouthful but am not sure that it is a great idea to use the wrong name for a piece of legislation, especially if you do not mention the correct name anywhere in an article, as at Whistleblower protection act (India).
2. Has the bill actually become law yet? From the sources cited it looks like the cabinet has agreed to proceed with it but there is no indication that it has actually been passed or otherwise entered into the statute books.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late amendment: if the bill has not actually entered the statute books then it is still, at best, a bill. It is not an Act. That was a subtle point of my comment above. My apologies for not making it more clear. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Whistleblower Protection Act, India, using Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making The Disclosure Bill, 2010 would be a better name, it seems to be the official name. The bill doesn't seem to be a law yet http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110512/jsp/nation/story_13972300.jsp Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth have you contested the deletion of this article? The content is already in the article to which you refer. It is pointless to suggest a merge into something that already contains the content, using an article title that is blatantly misleading. Did you actually read the CSD rationale? It is that the things are duplicates. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed by your message to Jodi.a.schneider, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons you were in trouble before, and fails to show you doing what needs to be done to improve your editing here. Yes, ARS exists, and, often, the do very good work. However, you should not have gone running to an ARS member to try to save these articles. The goal isn't to save or delete anything--the goal is to come to a consensus about how to organize all of the information (one article or many? All in Chandigarh or also in CCR? etc.). Your input on Talk: Chandigarh Capital Region, especially the sources, has been valuable in this regard--note that I agree with you that the CCR article should exist, although probably not in the form it is currently in.

Moreover, the issue with your articles was never "quality". It was that the articles flat out violated a variety of policies. The corruption+India and terrorism+Pakistan articles directly violated WP:NPOV and WP:OR (and, in some cases, even WP:V when you misrepresented sources). Your village stubs violated WP:V because none of them had any verification. The splits violated WP:Copyright and also good practices about how to organize information. Throughout the whole business, you violated collaborative editing guidelines, because you kept moving from one massive project to another without solving the problems you made on previous projects, and often refused to stop your rapid creations/splits even when others were desperately telling you to stop and discuss the issue.

Your requesting of help from ARS makes me think that you don't understand those issues or want to get past them; rather, it makes me think that all you care about is saving the articles, even though right now at least 4 different editors think that too many of them were split (although we disagree on which, exactly, should remain). Yes, it can be appropriate to bring in outside help, although specifically going to ARS is probably the wrong way to go as it presupposes a specific kind of help. We have a variety of dispute resolution processes. Depending on how things shape up on CCR, I'm actually thinking that we may need to get an Request for Comment from uninvolved editors (ideally, not, though, because it can be a lengthy involved process). You, however, are not in any position to be starting any actions like this. You technically shouldn't even be editing article talk pages, but I gave you special dispensation because your input is valuable.

I guess that's what this comes down to: the way I read your message to Jodi.a.schneider is that you're trying to find a way to circumvent your temporary mainspace ban. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the effect of your words.

Lastly, let me note something that was clearly stated in the mentoring rules, but which you may not have noticed. You are banned from mainspace for at least two weeks. During these two weeks, you're supposed to be demonstrating to me that you know how to do that, at least at a minimally competent level. While I know it's only been two days, you haven't demonstrated anything at all to me yet. To be clear, the way you will demonstrate that is by working in a sandbox to show some specific additions you think should go into an existing article (or, alternatively, work on a new article, but only if it's about an unambiguously notable topic--it cannot be any sort of "Sub topic of Region of India X"). You should be spending your time communicating with me, not with ARS members to try to save your previously created articles.

I'd like to kindly ask that other editors besides Mahesh not add comments to this section. I think this is a pretty harsh message, so I don't want to make it worse by having others amplify it and overwhelm Mahesh. If you want to comment, please do so on my talk page or email me if you want it private, and I'll take into account your messages. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand Dowry system in India
• Possibly create Swastikas in Indian culture
• Create Car puja to which you can add photos that you take.
• There is little on the spice trade or use of spices in India.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Whistleblower protection act (India). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Whistleblower_protection_in_India. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Whistleblower_protection_in_India - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sitush (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly merge if possible. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth have you contested the deletion of this article? The content is already in the article to which you refer. It is pointless to suggest a merge into something that already contains the content, using an article title that is blatantly misleading. Did you actually read the CSD rationale? It is that the things are duplicates. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using Google Books. You will encounter such titles as:

• Bridewealth and dowry
• South Asians and the dowry problem
• Encyclopaedia of violence against women and dowry death in India

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know Dowry exists as an article. The section Dowry system in India within needs expansion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to find the text - open freely to use e.g with creative commons licence etc ? Can that be used 'as it is' in Wikipedia ?Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a creative commons licensed version existed, we still would not want to copy it directly into Wikipedia. That is, we are allowed to, legally, but our standard practice is, whenever possible, to summarize and rewrite our sources. Most sources are more detailed than we want in a Wikipedia article, for example, or may not be phrased neutrally. Instead, we have to read through the sources, figure out what is necessary, and add only that information to the article. Don't worry about the English--I can easily help with copy-editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and WP:PLAGIARISM might come into play even if the stuff is CC-BY-SA. As for standards of English etc, well I am English & you will not believe how many mistakes I make. Just roll with it: someone will come along and tidy it up if the content has merit. A very experienced editor has just been doing that for an article which has been more or less written by me recently, Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer). - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on User:Maheshkumaryadav/Pink sandbox. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I look at it either tomorrow or the day after (I may not be on WP much tomorrow; not sure yet). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the section(User:Maheshkumaryadav/Pink sandbox) sufficient enough to be taken to Dowry system in India or is it needed to be developed further. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make comments on User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Pink sandbox. My overall impression is that it seems interesting and well written. However, after checking just a few of the references, I'm already finding problems. I'll comment over there. However, it may take me time as you've done a lot of work and I want to check it thoroughly. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of villages in Haryana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Haryana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore that; it's an automated message because I created the AfD for the list with a tool. Sorry, but this one has to go--of the small number of blue links, almost none of those actually point to villages in Haryana. As I explained in AfD, this list actually makes it harder to improve coverage of villages in India, because it would take significant effort just to get the list to the point where it had no information rather than inaccurate information as it does now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of villages in Panchkula district is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Panchkula district until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nano City has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A classic example of why WP:CRYSTAL exists. This scheme was cancelled - see, for example, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nano-city-project-called-off/643290/ or generally GSearch "nano city project called off".

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Maheshkumaryadav/Blue sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard from you in a while, and I see you haven't been editing Wikipedia much. Do you have any questions, or need any help or suggestions? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays i am getting less spare time, that's the reason. I shall be incorporating the change in the sandbox advised by you. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]