User talk:Rajdba
Welcome
[edit]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Shah Mastana Ji Maharaj, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://derasachasaudaguru.blogspot.com/2010/12/beparwah-shehanshah-mastana-ji-maharaj.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Edits at Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
[edit]Greetings, please do not resume adding lengthy honorifics to every single mention of the subject's name in said article. By Wikipedia convention, people are referred to by short versions of their name after their full name has been introduced. For example, Abraham Lincoln refers to the subject as "Lincoln" throughout, not "President Abraham Lincoln", and definitely not "The Most Honorable President Mr. Lincoln." It gives a non-neutral and unprofessional impression to list out honorific names throughout an article, and both the intro and the infobox clearly outline Singh's honorific titles.
Secondly, you have asserted that the dismissed cases are of "no historical importance". That is your opinion, and these cases have been frequently referred to in third party sources as forming the background of public impressions of the DSS. Accordingly, they should be listed, though as you and I agree it is vitally important that the outcome and/or dismissal of each case be clearly noted.
Please do not make these reverts again without posting a very clear defense of such at the Talk page for the article, as I submit your edits are very much in the minority, and that a body of neutral editors would consider the edits to be non-neutral. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Legal threats on Wiki
[edit]As a heads-up: any reference at all to legal repercussions of editing Wikipedia falls under WP:No legal threats. Do note that such applies not just to "I'll pursue this in court!!!" but also to "if you keep doing this you're going to get sued", given that the latter can easily be a veiled threat, or at the very least present a chilling effect.
In reference to your post on my Talk (bolding mine):
if someone is putting some negative content, eg the cases that are now proved false is again and again welcomed by the volunteers, that is also a non-neutral approach, please help on this else wait for a legal notice from the organization as per the link given below. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Fed/socialmedia-updates/Delete-anti-religious-posts-Court-to-networking-sites/Article1-786483.aspx
We've been over this many times on WP:WikiProject India's Talk page, and the general consensus is that any comments such as "you're defaming this caste/religion/etc. and that's against Indian law" run afoul of WP:NLT. As I understand it, the Wikimedia Foundation has no stance/concern on the issue (not being based in India), and the WikiProject's general consensus was that if particular editors located in India had concerns about their personal liability, they should consult a local barrister.
Further, as has been repeatedly noted on the Talk page and to you: we are absolutely not saying "DSS committed X crime or Y crime". We are making the absolutely factual statements that they were accused of X crime or act, whether in court or by declaration of another organisation. And, as you rightly note, we have ensured that we report the conclusions of those legal actions, especially if the case was dismissed. These are all facts, not allegations or hearsay, but statements of what actually transpired in court and in the press.
Setting all that aside, you're still showing a pattern of non-neutral editing, trying to build DSS up and remove anything that "undermines" them. I suggest you read WP:Conflict of interest and consider whether you may too personally invested in the topic to look at it objectively. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Falcon8765 (TALK) 19:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikas.insan for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Falcon8765 (TALK) 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)