Rahulchic

Proposed deletion of Distribution Center Management System

The article Distribution Center Management System has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

thinly-veiled spam

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

=> The article has since been improved and was not deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_center_management_system Rahulchic (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Aam Aadmi Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Digvijay Singh

Tanishq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tata

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

=> Thanks. I have corrected both these errors now. Rahulchic (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2015

Your addition to Bajirao I has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. utcursch | talk 05:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Correction to above: I did not do any addition. I only undid the deletion of a few portions by a user, which I thought was reducing this article on Peshwa Bajirao I to a superficial article. I saw Stush's deletions as a vandalism campaign. I replied below on the talk page of that article: This selective inclusion and exclusion based on fancies of a few people or a group on the basis of so called copyright violations (can you be sure that for all other matters published in this article or in other Wikipedia articles a written permission has been taken?) is naturally suspicious. This article used to be extensive and after removing aspects like caste of Peshwa Bajirao saying (caste claim removed) and so other things, especially time of this edit campaign (when a movie is released) easily point towards political motivation. You did ban me without giving me a chance to reply back to you. You can be seen as a trigger happy moderator with little patience. Rahulchic (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "selective inclusion and exclusion" based on anyone's "fancies". The inclusion criteria are very well-defined: the content should be copyright-free, well-sourced, verifiable and neutral. Please take some time to read those pages, if you have not already done that. Anyone can remove the content which doesn't adhere to these policies. The burden lies on the person who adds or restores the content.

"Other crap exists" is not a valid argument. If you see a problem in an article, remove it from that article. Do not introduce the problem in other articles, especially after someone has removed problematic content. If the police arrest you for robbery, you cannot defend yourself by saying "What about other robberies happening around the world?"

The fact that this article is getting a lot of views is one more reason to remove crap. If the number of guests coming to your house is increasing, that's one more reason to clean the house, not one more reason to let it remain filled with garbage.

One could also question your edits as "political motivation". Or one could simply assume good faith and realize that a lot of editors, (including Sitush, you and others) are interested in article simply because the topic is in the news.

And please don't say that you were banned without being given a chance to redeem yourself. The content that you restored — not once or twice — but thrice, was copied from another source. This was clearly mentioned in Sitush's edit summary, and you knew it because you specifically undid this edit. Subsequently, you were told twice (once on this page, and once on talk page of the article) that you are indulging in copyright violation, and will be blocked for it. Also, you could have replied to me (or anyone else) on your talk page even while you were blocked. The message on your talk page contained instructions on how to appeal a block. utcursch | talk 06:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I am not going to respond in detail on this because naturally and humanly you are only going to defend yourself. I still standby my opinion on this episode. To your comfort I have not edited or undone anything in this article ever since this episode and I don't plan to do it in future. So you win - as moderators always win. You need not spend any further energy here. Rahulchic (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Page on Bajirao I

I agree that there might have been some kind vandalism due to a movie being released on this topic, but strongly suggest to reinstate two things - one is titles of nobility and the other is the commemorations. Please check the below references.

• Ballal - it is a title the Peshwa carried. I don't see anything sensitive here. Why was it removed from infobox? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RdcnAgh_StUC&pg=PA97&dq=bajirao+ballal+peshwa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpOP5sffJAhWSj44KHVXCCXUQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=bajirao%20ballal%20peshwa&f=false

• Shreemant Peshwa - the Peshwas were addressed as Shreemant. So what's the problem? Why was it removed from infobox? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uPq640stHJ0C&pg=PA46&dq=shrimant+peshwa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK39a4svfJAhXOv44KHatZBD8Q6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=shrimant%20peshwa&f=false

• Painting - a painting of Peshwa is present at Parvati Hills. Not sure why that picture was removed. What's the big deal in it?

• Commemorations - There are two statues of Bajirao I in Maharashtra. It had a citation from Times of India. Again, this is something which is not sensitive. Not sure why was it removed

All in all, I feel the entire article has been revamped and somehow the new article looks like a product of vandalism

Amit20081980 16:17, 25 Dec 2015 (UTC)

@Amit20081980: Hi Amit, Thanks for pointing these out and I agree with you. But you should point these out to the right persons, like Utcursch and others who have led this restructuring of the article as if heaven was falling down if a few citations were left there in the article - or post this on the Talk page of the article itself. I did not do any additions, I was only trying to protect the article as it was before this possible vandalism from others started. Rahulchic (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)