User talk:Amarrg

Leave a message

Archives

1. Apr-2007

2. Jun-2007

3. Aug-2007

4. Sep-2007

5. Oct-2007

6. Nov-2007

7. Feb-2008

Don't remove tags prior to consensus being reached about why the tags shouldn't be there

Removing relevant tags prior to consensus has been reached constitutes vandalism, and again, this is a Wikipedia policy. I have reverted your revert, as the tags are relevant, and the onus is on the editors who want the tags removed, to demonstrate why they should be removed as has been indicated by an administrator on another editor's page. Please refrain from removing tags in the future, unless they are obviously irrelevant, which isn't the case here. I have also briefly outlined why the tags are relevant, currently. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I suggest you take a break and cool down before making any further responses, so that you are civil, calm and rational. 2 sources (especially, those 2) are not enough to form the basis of an entire article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You need not have to advice me on civility, I dont go around unnecessarily tagging articles and users. Your argument is again questionable, a single source is more than sufficient to write a single article, as long as it can be proven as WP:RS. For example, many articles on history are more or less based on the writings of 1-2 authors who actually recorded that history, but then we cannot claim such articles as unreliable, can we? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right re: advice - I listed it at the WP:AN/I, so that an administrator takes an appropriate course of action. Regarding your argument, it wouldn't be a surprise to know that you are supporting your comrade in pushing for the removal of these tags, as the article can only rely on these 1-2 measly sources. If a source is 100% R, or close, then of course an article could rely on this alone. Yet, with so little to show for the credibility of these sources/authors (whether this be in the form of qualifications, or other forms of recognition), there is significant doubt over the sources and they certainly would not fall under this category as you are well aware. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary wasn't required

Re your edit summary to the Brad Hogg retirement update. Ask Ganguly what he thinks. You'd think he would have retired before the Indian series if they were "too hot to handle". I think you need to use a bit more civility. The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Free advice not needed. Responded on your talk page -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that an administrator (in response to the WP:AN/I on your recent edits will either advise you, or perhaps warn you that Wikipedia's articles are NOT a forum for voicing your opinion or personal analysis, even if it is in an edit summary, and such comments are not warranted. I don't think any administrator will see your comment/reply at The-Pope's talk page as a valid justification. However, you are welcome to dispute this there at the ANI if you wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

If you can indicate to me how a source which does not demonstrably meet the reliable sources threshold can be considered to be a reliable source, then I would say that I have shown bias. However, to go so far as Sarvagnaya did and calling the placement of the tags "vandalism" is itself more than a bit inappropriate, isn't it? And, for what it's worth, it wasn't an attempt to lecture, but just explain the justification for restoration. Personally, what I see is, unfortunately, more of a likely failure to AGF on your part than anyone else here. John Carter (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in addition, please cease misrepresenting wikipedia policy as you did on the talk page of the article in question. Alternately, if you believe that somehow your statements on the Talk:Vijayanagara musicological nonet page are justified, I suggest you read the page I linked to regarding sourcing. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, as indicated in the last thread above, WP:CIVILITY is at least potentially an issue for you yourself. Please in the future at least try to pay a bit more attention to it. Thanks. :) John Carter (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To an extant, I agree with your comment. However, it should be noted that the source in question, while written by a scholar, is from a source which gives no indication of it having been peer reviewed, so, in effect, all we have in this case is the reputation of the writer and the website, whose reputation I know nothing about. The nutshell of the WP:RS says that we should base content on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's arguable, at least in the eyes of someone not particularly knowledgable about the field, whether the web site including the second source even qualifies as "published", let alone one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I do know that there are now some "on-line academic journals", but there's no clear evidence that this is one of them.

By saying that, I'm not saying that the source isn't acceptable, just that to my eyes there's no real good evidence that I've seen that it is, and unfortunately the burden of proof is on the person placing the disputed material. I deal with a lot of religious content, and trust me, I've seen more official looking websites elsewhere which were pure POV pushers. I don't anticipate arguing that it's not an acceptable source, but another one would probably be preferable, and a bit clearer evidence as to what is being cited would work as well. There do seem to be some reasonable questions at least whether the last paragraph is sourced anywhere, as there's no citation for that. This isn't necessarily a big problem, like I said earlier. I've written lengthy biographies based on a single source with no reference citations whatsoever. But it would help a lot if there were citations, maybe at least at the end of each paragraph, to indicate that the material is sourced.

And, for what it's worth, the individual who likes to threaten to block others has now been told repeatedly, including by me, that that's not really the best approach to take in these matters. I did indicate to him on his talk page the preferable way to go in situations like this, and I at least hope that he'll start acting in accord with them. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings. And, for what it's worth, who would know better regarding how to behave than someone like me who's been told several times that what he's doing is wrong? At this point, trust me, even if I don't follow them, I've memorized most of the rules of conduct through having them consistently repeated to me. And, regretably, at least one other editor (name begins with an S) has in all the previous contact with him that I remember behaved in a manner which was at best dubiously acceptable, and I regret to say I probably based some of my own actions on that prior experience. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:brindavan.jpg|thumb|200px|Fountains at Brindavan at night

Hi, I have relinked the image uploaded by Roshan to Mysore as it is available now.

Fountains at Brindavan at night

Hope you dont mind ! - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Amarrg. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stop harassing me

There is clear evidence that shows you fail to assume good faith now. Please stop harassing me with your nonsensical claims and other attacks. Btw it wasn't a matter of pleading - most of the administrators could obviously see straight through what you were doing. And maybe if you stopped harrassing me, I could spend that little time I am on Wikipedia to work more on the articles I've begun. And btw, please don't expect a reply to your next comment on my talk page (if you make one) as I have better things to do. I shouldn't bother interacting with the group of trolls. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)