![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' is a Vaishnava Literature praising 'Vishnu' and his Incranations. .I went through 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana'. .It has 4 Sections. .'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' consists of 4 Parts and 32 Chapters. .All the Chapters are provided in the below site. .No such 'Indecent Story' occurs in 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana'. . . And the Author itself is an American Feminist who cites it without any proof. .Should an American Book be used to Post Indecent Articles against Hinduism ??? . If there was an Good source, then it would not have been a problem. .For example Cite the Translation of 'Brahma Vaivarta Purana' as a source. .Please never post, what some 'Anti-Hindu' people write in their Book as a Source. .Its a Request. . . If u can find a Credible source, then im okay with that Article. .But if not, please remove that piece of Article which is an Insult to Hindu Gods. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.112.108 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
SOURCE for the Summaries of 32 Complete Chapters of 'BRAHMA VAIVARTA PURANA'. .Please go through all the Chapters and show me where such a Story Arises ?? . http://www.astrojyoti.com/brahmavaivartapurana.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.112.108 (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What is this page? Why is this on wikipedia? This is not an encyclopedia page! Why does none of this make sense? I thought Wikipedia had strict standards about pages? Can I just start making pages about anything now? I don't think that's a good idea. This page should not be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So a pop culture reference about a [pop culture subject] is now deemed "irrelevent"? Your logic is flawed. And so is your spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.59.254 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
for deleting vandalism on National Rifle Association TheRico152 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hiya Achowat. I see you're doing sterling work on vandal-patrolling.
Just one thing though - in this revert, you accidentally restored a revision which a different IP had also vandalised. Ah well, it happens! Trafford09 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Great - cheers (I've done it myself, before now!). Trafford09 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
if you dont know anything about an article stop keeping ppl from correcting and enhancing it by just undo it all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.212.87.231 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to say welcome to the project and thanks for joining. Please let me know if you have any questions about the project or if you have any ideas about how we can make things better. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The edits made by you for reverting an IP for the article 7aum Arivu were not constructive and has been reverted. And plus, the IP had given an edit summary to describe the changes he had made. Per WP:ROLLBACK, you should not have used that feature for reverting. He is absolutely right, the gross is not sourced at all. And please assume good faith before doing any more reverts if needed. Guess the hoard of vandals is getting on our nerves. So I can't blame anyone right now. :D X.One SOS 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see a Speedy Deletion request for De Zwethheul. Can you explain why you nominated this (btw, speedy is already denied)? Night of the Big Wind talk 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I declined the speedy delete on this as Śarabhanga is a character in an ancient Sanskrit epic. At least according to the article, which is unreferenced. Feel free to WP:PROD or WP:AFD it. --GraemeL (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Consider the POV of the article:
1) Reports New York Times information, without balancing it with anything from a non-left-wing source 2) Straight reporting of claims from the Obama Administration, again without balancing it with anything from a non-left-wing-source 3) Chooses cutoff at a date that makes Republican presidents look worse than Democratic ones
Do you believe that nothing is needed to balance this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
-Achowat (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, on partisan political questions, the evidence for that is overwhelming. Heck, they even tried to pretend that certain rape defendants were guilty long after DNA had proved otherwise.Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk)
Here is the single most dramatic instance of NYT lies that I am aware of. We have innocent criminal defendants being framed by the DA, and the NYT supporting that DA every single step of the way.
The NYT published this, and has not retracted it to this day, despite a chorus of criticism from all over the place, and a finding from the new DA that the defendants were "innocent". I have put the NYT's central lie in boldface. Well, sure, if you ignore a time-stamped ATM videotape of the defendant at another location when the crime was supposedly occurring, you could say what the NYT said.
"that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury" -- with slipshod allusion to what he deems "[c]rucial to that portrait of the case": "Sergeant Gottlieb’s 33 pages of typed notes and 3 pages of handwritten notes."
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/times-no-harm-no-foul.html http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/wilson-and-stevenson-duke-it-out.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2006/08/witness_for_the_prosecution.htmlPreceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk)
Nothing with public debt. Everything with the documented unreliability of the NYT. Seriously, if you are willing to help frame three innocent criminal defendants in a high-profile case, and articles supporting the frame appear on your front page, why should you be trusted on any topic? 98.222.48.17 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
"Perceived bias?" Do you believe that a videotape which contradicts a version of events is merely "perceived bias?"
Hi Achowat
You recently tagged the article Recalcitrant Interdependence as being both not notable and lacking in secondary sources. Having read the relevant information, I can understand why you did. At present the thesis is available through the university library it has also been accepted for publication. The University will be putting up some information about it on it's website in the next couple of months. I hope that you will wait and contact me before tagging this page further.
9191Aus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9191Aus (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Achowat, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Topping, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not every professor wiil survive AFD but being a Professor should be enough to avoid A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the ((stub)) template does not take a date parameter. Adding it as you did for PC-Port-Forwarding just wastes the time of a stub-sorter who has to remove it. Thanks. PamD 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
By the looks of it, you've been single-handedly keeping down the New Page queue. Keep up the good work24.151.194.84 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC) |
what the heck is wrong with you with the page i made called lonely heart ufo song.me and some other people want to see a wikipedia page about it.do u have a problem!!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyzzzX (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Basically,It wasn't you the first guy who taged one of my articles for speedy deletion.There were some other articles that were removed at the beginning just because they wasnt very interesting or informative.are those people stupid or what??i mean i didnt do something bad or wrong.there are other pages on wikipedia that are worse than mine and they arent removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyzzzX (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For reverting vandalism to my user talk page. Cheers! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
As always, thank you. -Achowat (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I didnt know about that, thanxVanishingcattle (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |