User talk:Sahyadhri

Welcome!

Hello, Sahyadhri, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 07:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of tibet

A tag has been placed on Friends of tibet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Friends of tibet. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 07:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problems on your revert of my revert. This as long as you counter any points raised by the commie Hydman (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Swami Sandeep chatanya.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Swami Sandeep chatanya.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to The Hindu, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline (magazine)

Hi, it seems you have by mistake removed the text (with references) on notability of Frontline's journalists: the Awards section. Please put it back. It may not be your view, but you have removed other's views without citing any reason. So your comment in edit is not as honest as it sounds. Isn't it? --GDibyendu (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no supporting citation for "which has drawn much flak from prominent Human rights activists". --GDibyendu (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address controversial changes on the talk page, rather than edit warring

Hello. I am responding to a recent administrators' noticeboard request regarding your edits to The Hindu and Frontline (magazine). Please address controversial changes on the talk page, such as [Talk:The Hindu#Inaccurate edits|here]], rather than engaging in edit warring. Please remember that according to the Three-Revert Rule, even if an editor does not exceed three reverts in 24 hours, they may still in certain circumstances be blocked from editing if they continue to revert without discussion on the talk page. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated insertion of poorly sourced controversial material

I see that you repeatedly inserted poorly sourced controversial material in articles, in violation of our policy on verifiability, especially on reliable sources, and on original research. I strongly recommend that you refrain from this and instead use talk pages to discuss issues regarding criticism and other controversial topics in an article, keeping in mind our policy on neutral point of view. Note that if you continue to edit war and doesn't discuss the matter, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Be also aware that attempts to evade a block or the 3RR restriction using alternate accounts or IPs is not allowed and grounds for extended blocks. Cenarium ^Talk 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research

"As a current affairs magazine, it covers domestic and International news ,it has come under severe criticism from Human rights and free media advocacy groups as a result of the current editor in chief's apparent P.R. endeavor for the Communist Party of China [1]."

Your source (which is a broken link) is a story from Frontline. How could you use a story from Frontline to support your claim that the magazine has been criticized for its activities? You need a reliable third-party source to back this up. By providing a link to Frontline as your source, you've essentially offering your own personal commentary and original research on the matter.

Another example of your original research:

"On the foreign news coverage front, the Frontline's worldview is dominated by a strong anti American sentiment, coupled with a sympathetic reporting about leftist regimes across the world.^{[citation needed]}"

Another:

"Publishing an explicit Xinhua [2] authored version on Tibet which has drawn much flak from prominent Human rights activists [3]"

Where's your proof that Frontline has received much flak from prominent human rights activists? Or that it was a Xinhua-authored version on Tibet?

Your link to The Hoot (which doesn't work) doesn't mean anything, either. This is a criticism of one single individual, who's not even a notable commentator on journalism.

I suggest you read WP:RS, WP:UNDUE (in essence, you've filled this whole article with Frontline's supposed anti-Tibet bias - this is against policy), WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you, since you have not stopped your behaviour after numerous warnings. If you wish to work out some compromise, e-mail me or use this talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]