User talk:Rameshnta909/Archive 1

Welcome[edit]

Hello Rameshnta909, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Rameshnta909, good luck, and have fun. – Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation[edit]

Hello! Rameshnta909, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angels & Demons[edit]

Hi. Regarding your edits to Angels & Demons:

Since the film was produced after the novel, any material on changes should be presented in the article on the film. I have moved the material to that article.
Proper nouns are capitalized. These includes names of people, organizations, titles, etc. I don't know why you persistently lowercased names in the material you added.
The name of the organization is the Swiss Guard. Not the Swiss Guards. Individual members of that organizations could certainly be called "guards", but that isn't the name of the group.
Articles or other indicators should be placed in front of singular, specific nouns, such as in the assassin contacts members of the BBC..., and not simply assassin contacts members of the BBC...
When indicating one member or unit of a group, the group must be indicated to be a plural. Thus, the phrase is properly One of the main characters in the movie..., and not One of the main character in the movie...

If you going to contribute to an encyclopedia, you should have a grasp of basic writing skills. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used words that were appropriate. People who do not have, or who neglect or refuse to exhibit basic writing skills, should not write encyclopedias. Nightscream (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarath Fonseka, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You created your Teahouse profile[edit]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Welcome very welcome if you have questions,please feel free to drop me a line! Carliitaeliza TALK 12:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi Rameshnta909! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse questions[edit]

I reverted your recent deletion (twice) of material from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. We don't just delete questions and answers from there. They will be automatically archived in due course, but are available to help other readers. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transport in Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Province (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) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalpitiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escapade (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) 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Telangana, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Making edits with a non-neutral point of view does not make an editor a vandal. Please be careful when using such a term. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, only admins can protect pages. Please make a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mawanella massacre[edit]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. ---CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chili pepper page edit[edit]

Hi, Ramenshnta909. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your nod on my edits at the Chili Pepper page. I can see you are new to the encyclopedia and seeking to make good faith edits. A couple of brief pointers: one, citations do not float to fit an editor's sense of style. As a general rule they belong where the original user inserted them. Only if you verify that the entirety of content at the desired new location is supported by that at the website cited may one be moved, not following inferences drawn or commentary by the original or subsequent editors.

Secondly, one must be very judicious in the use of Wikipedia's Minor Edit feature. It is to be employed only when there is no reasonable chance of other editors objecting to the edit. To help, I'll give two examples apropos of the above instance: one, say you found two commas in a row, even in a cited passage, like so: "January,, 2014". It is reasonable to conclude the second is a typo (and cannot be confused with legitimate punctuation such as three periods in a row, an ellipse). It would be appropriate to delete the redundant one and characterize your edit as a minor one, labeled perhaps "Removed redundant comma", "Minor copyedit" (or "Minor ce"). Example #2: say you found a passage where a citation was inserted immediately ahead of a comma. It is convention in Wikipedia for cites to immediately follow punctuation, not precede, so it would be fair to move the comma ahead of the cite and label one's edit as a minor copyedit.

Obvious corrections in spelling (and not switches from say British English to American English spelling conventions) are also minor edits, as say correcting "elipse" to "ellipse". Going beyond such simple mechanical sorts of edits strays outside of consensus use of the Minor Edit option.

Good luck, and have fun. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser100 First of all sorry for listing the edit as a minor edit and thankz for pointing it out. But I myself created the section Crop defense in the page Chili pepper and you can verify that in the revision history. I inserted the citation at the end of the second line but actually entire section is sourced from that website. I recommend you to check the source to confirm...Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for that clarification. Good job explaining your edit at the Chili page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam-language television channels[edit]

The {{unreferenced}} tag you placed on this page seems unneeded as it is list to direct reader's attention to notable subjects. Each entry in the list must have a page, so it is assumed each one has asserted notability. Cluttering a simple list page with citations/footnotes/refs seems counterproductive as there should not be any unsourced entry there anyway. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

k..Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oommen Chandy edit[edit]

Dear Rameshnta909, I am quite sure that I haven't written anything in favour of anybody and certainly I have not used Wikipedia to create hero image to someone. I am absolutely sure about the neutrality of the content that I have added to the page and I can defend it. Also, I believe that Wikipedia is not a stage to be used for defamatory comments about a person. Of course, when you write about politicians there will be sections to be written about controversies. But it was sad to see that it was not written in a neutral manner therefore I made the edits. Also I have seen your reversion of the word that I have used "clean chit", which has got innumerable sources to prove it. Therefore I am undoing the edits and please take it in the right sense. I am not any political supporter. Arunjith 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)mail2arunjith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail2arunjith (talk • contribs) [reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

In a recent edit to the page Preet Bharara, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Paris1127 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Redtigerxyz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dashavatara without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop removing references and distorting content. There are many references stating Buddha as an avatar in the popular list. See Talk:Dashavatara#Balarama_or_Buddha where this has been discussed. Also, see references in the article. DO NOT revert, unless you can prove by WP:RS that the article is wrong. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Dashavatara, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss on Talk:Dashavatara and provide WP:RS to prove your point. Please check the references and previous discussion threads. STOP removing references and do not revert before discussion. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See references in Gautama Buddha in Hinduism and Dashavatara. The holy Puranas say that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. There are numerous depictions of him as an avatar in Hindu temples/Dashavatara art. There are numerous versions of the Dashavatara list, however as per the references, Buddha is part of the most popular list. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism#In_the_Puranas. Also, this has been discussed in Talk:Dashavatara#Balarama_or_Buddha. You are free to continue the discussion on Talk:Dashavatara. Please provide WP:RS to prove that Buddha is not the popular list. Please note that it is not opinion of users/editors that matters, but the opinion of scholars and references that decide what is the popular list. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Oommen Chandy, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova[edit]

Please see Talk:Maria_Sharapova#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_July_2014 and gain consensus for the addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Maria Sharapova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Abhimanyu[edit]

You recently reverted the name Parikshita to Parikshit saying that it is a Sanskritized name and common usage is Parikshit. However we here at Wikipedia don't go by common usage. Also you actually forget that the Sanskritzed names are commonly used. In whichever article Shiva is mentioned his name is written as Shiva although the common usage is Shiv. Also you forget the common usage of Arjuna and Yudhistra is Arjun and Yudhistir. However wherever they are mentioned on Wikipedia their Sanskritized names are used. Also the common usage is actually the Hindi version of their names. We can't just change a name because its usage is different in the majority language. Whenever names of Hindu deities or mythological characters are mentioned, Sanskritized names are mostly used. You can see that in all articles about Hnduism on Wikipedia. Therefore I ask you to stop disputing over this issue especially since Sanskritized names are the common usage on Wikipedia. Also I notice that you have been involved in edit warring with many users. You should stop edit warring and learn to let things go. We cannot always get we want on Wikipedia. MythoEditor (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just say that names like Arjuna, Yudishtra and Krishna are different. But you have not explained how. You can't say they are different unless you provide an explanation and a reliable proof. MythoEditor (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MythoEditor You are right I also noticed title of article about Uttar is Uttara. I changed it into parikshit Becoz the title of the article is such. If you are sure that parikshita is correct (I am not really sure that it is correct), you can request to move the article from parikshit to parikshita and feel free to make the change - Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vivian Sibold for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vivian Sibold 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/Vivian Sibold 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Zarb-e-Azb[edit]

This was not vandalism, rather I think was explicit improvement. Please use an edit summary next time. Regards and Good Luck! Fai zan 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening[edit]

Vandalism is not to be tolerated at wikipedia please stop. Abu reiss (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your move request[edit]

Did you see that we are discussing moving this to "Islamic State", which is what it calls itself as do many other sources> Why have ignored that discussion and started an RM to a different name? Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller becoz it is the name commonly used by media and political analysts now. Islamic state is only used by the oeganisation. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. It would have been courteous to first join in the discussion. To simply ignore it and start a RM is not the best way to work with other editors. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller I didn't mean to offend any of our fellow editors. I placed the request to steer the debate to ISIS from IS. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it's bad timing. We need to include both options, is that ok? Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller In my opinion Is is not a common name and it can be confused with Islamic state. Let's conduct a discussion about ISIS and see what others have to say about it. Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is discussed in the section I started. You've been asked to remove the RM and I am consulting at [{Wikipedia talk:Requested moves]]. And a search turns up in seconds [1] [2]. You may have been right a short while ago but not now. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd included[3]. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been procedurally closed due to the earlier discussion. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller Yeah I'll join the earlier discussion. Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Villian talk page section[edit]

Hey, just letting you know I refactored the heading for the section you created. Especially on article talk pages, you want to avoid using a specific editors name in the section heading. We're supposed to focus on the edits, not the editor. Using their name can also come across as a challenge or hostility to the other user. Sometimes what you think is perfectly fine can contribute to a more difficult environment. By starting the section with a neutral heading you can help keep possible tensions to a minimum. Mentioning the editor by name in the text of the section is perfectly fine, just try to keep it out of the heading. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire You should have noted that user I am having a conflict is just a beginner. So I just meant to make it easier for him to find the section. No intention to defame him. Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that, but it's still a good idea not to call them out. Especially for new editors, they can interpret it as you are calling them out. So you call out the edits, focusing on the issues and hopefully things get resolved nicely. See the WP:TALKNEW guideline . Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire k.. Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione ^Message 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dashavatara[edit]

I myself don't agree with the current version, see [4] and [5] these are still two better version. I think that it can be changed if you add some discussion to this section > Talk:Dashavatara#Buddha_is_not_a_Avtar. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti I am offended actually becoz some of the fellow editors are trying to deliberately include this error in the page. But we should find reliable sources to prove the fact. I will do all I can. Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a message there, see the talk page. There are many reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Dashavatara Bladesmulti (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raheel Sharif[edit]

First of all you need to know that his blood brothers name is Shabbir Sharif Rana where rana is a rajput name. [[6]][[7]]

[[8]]

the reason that some people are confused about him to be a kashmiri is because alot of indian sources took sharif out of his name and nawaz name and thought both are lahori and kashmiri as mentioned here [[9]].. but he is a rajput maybe a bhatti rajput from kashmir but is from gujrat in pakistan as is his brother and uncle.

On the other hand he is nephew of Raja Aziz Bhatti who is a Rajput as here [[10]] and also from his name

Now this is just a misconception.. and i think you can clear it out atleast .. there is one source that is rediff for kashmiri but there are most sources regarding his brother and himself which state he is a rajput — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]