Hello, welcome to my talk page!
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hello, just to confirm you do not have administrator privileges correct? You simply have Rollback and pending changes? Pasteleditor (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
|
The Original Barnstar |
| thanks for help Iamsanjayjoshi (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply |
Hi, MrOllie. I saw you reverted my edits to Qnet earlier this month. As my edits across Wikipedia are specifically to deal with citation issues and templates (as it seems to be a spiraling issue), I would like to get more feedback, as I don't want to be doing anything improperly, and believe my edits were valid.
My criteria on all pages is to remove citations (and where applicable, page contents) based on templated pages, limiting my removals to:
- complete dead links (aka no current active link, and nothing archived)
- archived links that lead to 404s, home pages, or completely different articles
- press releases or promotional citations
I don't believe any of my edits to QNET were out of order - none of the other pages I've made similar edits to recently have been reverted, so I'm not sure where I went astray of editing policies, but wanted to discuss before restoring in case I did make a major error. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I replied to your numerous warnings on my talk page but you didn't get back to me. So, to be on the safe side, I'll reply here too:
1. Please stop spamming me aggressively with warnings as if you were an administrator (which you are not).
2. Please stop twisting facts: I did not "add commentary, your [i.e. my] own point of view, or your [i.e. my] own personal analysis" but I clearly cited Wiki policies and rational reasons as to why I reverted those edits by this particular user.
3. Please stop making false accusations: you accused me of edit warring when it was clearly you who started to revert my edits WITHOUT a clear explanation. See article's edit history...
4. Please think and research a bit: you stated that what I explained in my edit summary was not already discussed on the article's talk page. Then look into the talk page's archives... and don't accuse me of lying. Thank you.
I think all has been said. I will take the liberty to revert those edits again later. Should you by then still have any issues, you are free to take it to WP:ANI. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:5009:4C2D:53EA:C03A (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MrOllie I am having few concerns on the Heliocentrism article regarding the claim of Vedic heliocentrism since it states that
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres"
Since the two reference given below isn't any peer reviewed source and it technically claims that the Vedas knew about heliocentrism before greek astronomer Aristachus of Samos gave me a bit skeptic. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
