User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Your GA nomination of Bootleg recording

The article Bootleg recording you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bootleg recording for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delation of Xotelia

Hi,

My article Xotelia was delated a couple of times.

The weird thing is that a company operating in the exact same field has still its article published? SiteMinder What can I do? I am willing to improve my article but I have try many times. I am not sure what is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVA LEJAMTEL (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@EVA LEJAMTEL: The problem is that companies are generally not considered acceptable subjects for a general purpose encyclopedia that can be read by anyone in the world at any time. SiteMinder is not a great article to compare against as the quality of other articles is unpredictable, though its association with booking.com suggests it could be improved. Perhaps Kickstarter would be a better article to look at? What I would recommend is clicking here and using the Article Wizard. I would particularly focus on what benefits the organisation gives to the average man in the street; a list of personnel and financial turnover doesn't really mean much in the long term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Fleet Street

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"All Wikipedians are fools and what makes them so is having beauty like wot I have got."

Jeez, I need to pay attention to the DYK queues more often ... still at least being an admin I can flag bad hooks in WP:ERRORS and then fix them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens. Is this really the most salacious "tit-bit" that could be used to illustrate the infamous Street of Shame?? Glenda Slagg 123 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Abdul Rehman Sheikh

Hi, in case you can keep an eye on it in the future, I report to you that the article previously speedy-deleted under the titles Abdulrehman Shaikh and Abdul Rehman Shaikh has popped up again, under a slightly different title. Some more details, dated December, here. Thanks, –Gpmat (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gpmat: Thanks for the heads up. I see they have attempted to circumvent New Page Patrol by taking over a disambiguation page. Since I class that as vandalism (it degrades the encyclopedia by purposefully pointing the dab page to the wrong place), I've given them a week off. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work on GAs and congrats for ten years on wiki. Cheers! VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Deletion of Mircea Itul page

1. Please check the bias displayed by most Wikipedia editors from the very beginning throughout the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion.
2. Please check the compliance with Wikipedia five pillars of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion.
3. Please check the compliance with Wikipedia second pillar of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion: ‘2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.’
4. Please check the compliance with Wikipedia fourth pillar of most Wikipedia editors in in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion: ‘4. Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.’
5. Please check the compliance with Wikipedia fifth pillar of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion: ‘5. Wikipedia has no firm rules.’
6. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to language barriers and country barriers.
7. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to the following paragraphs from Wikipedia: Notability (academics): ‘The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important'.
8. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to the following paragraphs from Wikipedia: Notability (academics): ‘A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries'.
9. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to help and guidance provided for improvement of page content.
10. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to evidence provided by me to sustain Itul’s notability.
11. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to prejudices.
12. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to professionalism and work ethic.
13. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to accusations based on no source.
14. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to bad language.
15. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to power abuse.
16. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to threats and harassment.
17. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to objectivity.
18. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to impartiality.
19. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to untrue remarks proved by me as well as to misleading.
20. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to ignoring facts and evidence.
21. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to independent assessment.
22. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to reductionism.
23. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to defamatory remarks.
24. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to Itul’s notability as subject reduced to Spiru Haret University as subject.
25. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to Itul’s notability as university professor. The title was awarded by Ministry of Education in Romania and evidence provided.
26. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to Itul’s notability as CP1, the highest research academic ranking in the Institute of Philosophy and Psychology of the Romanian Academy, the highest academic institution in Romania. The title was awarded by Ministry of Education in Romania.
27. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to the following paragraph from Notability (academics): 'Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in academic research institutes. Academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements.'
28. Please check the assessment of most Wikipedia editors in the talk page about Mircea Itul's page deletion in relation to consistency with other Wikipedia pages of Romanian academics surviving on Wikipedia.
29. Please inform me in writing about the outcome of my complaints and your final decision.
30. Thank you in advance!Clairec78 (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that something you spent a considerable amount of time on was deleted by community consensus, but I closed the AfD as "delete" because the strongest arguments given by the participants there, several of whom who were experienced Wikipedians, were that it was not possible to write an acceptable quality article about the topic. You need to be concise in your arguments, and I fear that has been a key reason why other editors gave more credible comments. I will say that your interest is Mircea Itul seems unhealthy; for biographies of living people it is important to err on the side of exclusion, and it probably matters less that any one individual has an article or not than you might imagine. You have not edited on any other topic on Wikipedia aside from this one, which makes me speculate that you may have a conflict of interest? I would recommend reading the Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide to New Editors. If you want the text of the deleted article back, I can email it to you or post it to your userspace, please let me know which you would prefer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you please comment on these paragraphs written by Wikipedia editors during the assessment of Itul’s notability on Mircea Itul deletion page?
1 - ‘Let's work through the sources, demolishing this guy's claim to notability brick by brick’ signed by Biruitorul’
2 – ‘*Delete. Can find nothing in WoS or WorldCat. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).

• Addendum. Found contributions in WorldCat under pen-name, but holdings are still far from showing notability (see below for summary). Agricola44’
  

3 – ‘:When is a WP:WALLOFTEXT not a WP:WALLOFTEXT? When posted by user:clairec78 apparently. Good advice "Listen user:clairec78, don't post WP:WALLSOFTEXT, but make arguements." user:clairec78 replies "yes, yes, no walls of text", and posts a wall of text. Is that the sound I hear the sound of craniums being repeatedly smashed against walls? Claudebone (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)’
4 - And your comment: 'I will say that your interest in Mircea Itul seems unhealthy'. Are you a doctor to assess my health status?
I only care for the truth because I strongly believe that Itul is notable and you would rather not dismiss facts, evidence and information and then talk about 'consensus', when the two Wikipedia editors who assessed the page from a neutral point of view and from the side of truth were washed away before this 'consensus' was reached. The other Wikipedia editors assessing Itul showed to be on the other side from truth. Please comment on that. And these is just the tip of the iceberg.Clairec78 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) How could I edit more for Wikipedia when I am just a small unimportant user, victim of online abuse and bullying. And this has nothing to do with Mircea Itul, but only with myself and my feelings related to this inhuman experience that I've received from some editors here?Clairec78 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please provide medical evidence in my name to support the following statement that you made: 'I will say that your interest in Mircea Itul seems unhealthy'. Thank you!
Please also provide evidence of your decision to ignore the following assessments made by Wikipedia editors:

• Keep This academic is apparently well recognized in his field. Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. That you started your statements with an exhortation that you were going to get this article deleted displayed a real bias. Moreover, this discussion reveals an inherent systemic bias. GIGO. You are apparently looking for English language sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  
• Keep – There are far less worthy candidates surviving on WP. Little would be achieved if this were to be deleted. Yes "Keep""! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  

These Wikipedia editors are neither on my side, nor on Mircea Itul’s side. They are on the side of TRUTH.
Please provide evidence to support your decision to leave the page open more than the time frame given at the start of the talk.
I thought that someone who posts about The Sun what he posted and which I totally agree with, would have always stand for the TRUTH. I would have expected you to always stand up against the lie, the phony and the fake. I mentioned these so that everyone to see that I am a logical person although I am a woman, contrary to this comment made by Claudebone on Mircea Itul’s deletion page: ‘Thanks to user:Clairec78 for providing this additional information. Clearly by your logic an argument that is so verbiose must be unassailable. However, to really establish notability I think we need further text. More! more! more! I hope you understand. Diskspace is cheap user:Clairec78. Claudebone (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)’ Unfortunately, it seems to me that you are on the side of TRUTH only when you want that. Prove me wrong! Thank you for your time!Clairec78 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You should read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions carefully. Just asserting that something is notable is not sufficient without saying why - the two "keep" votes you reproduced here are paraphrased in "It's notable!" and "What about these other articles?" These clichéd arguments don't carry much weight. A comment that a search in WorldCat (a conglomerate service of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries) returned no results whatsoever carries far more weight, and when accompanied by a claim in the lead of being a leading academic being discredited with a tag, suggests the subject is not as notable as claimed by a particularly noisy advocate of that subject. Therefore, the "delete" voters have won the argument.

I'm sorry, I appreciate you have spent time writing the article and I am happy to email or userfy the text so you can reuse it elsewhere, though I do note you have not replied to that comment. However, when Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", it means you will occasionally have arguments you can't win. Sorry, but that's life. In particular, when editors talk about THE TRUTH in capitals, experience has told me that whatever claim they are asserting is probably false. There is no "online abuse and bullying" here, have a read of this news report of a real case of that where somebody is arrested for threatening to murder someone. Please have some perspective. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring two votes of Wikipedia editors does not mean consensus, does it?
Please provide medical evidence in my name to support the following statement that you made: 'I will say that your interest in Mircea Itul seems unhealthy'. Thank you!
Please provide evidence to support the following statement that you made: ' A comment that a search in WorldCat (a conglomerate service of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries) returned no results whatsoever carries far more weight, and when accompanied by a claim in the lead of being a leading academic being discredited with a tag, suggests the subject is not as notable as claimed by a particularly noisy advocate of that subject. Therefore, the "delete" voters have won the argument.'.
In the name of truth and of Itul's case, I demonstrated that there are 34 citations on Itul under the pen name Mircea Itu in WorldCat.
I. CITATIONS
According to the recent research (2015) on international ranking, the average rate of citation for Philosophy discipline is about 3 citations and has a decreasing trend. It is also recognised that the average citation rate is higher in countries such as the USA or the UK and much lower in countries such as Romania. The citations that I’ve provided to you show that Dr. Itul’s work has been cited by key academics in the field: international academics (Bryan S. Rennie, James W. Heisig, Douglas Allen, Mac Linscott Ricketts, Natale Spineto, Roberto Scagno, Giovanni Casadio, Julien Ries, Michel Angot, Cicerone Poghirc, Theodor Damian) and academics from Romania (academician Alexandru Surdu, Ioan N. Rosca, Mircea Handoca, Ion Pogorilovschi, George Anca and journalist Sorin Rosca-Stanescu). I have found 9 citations in international books, 3 citations in international articles, 6 citations in Romanian publications.
Bryan S. Rennie, Westminster College, Pennsylvania, the USA cites Itul and also appreciates his criticism on Eliade: 'Mircea Itu also writes on India and on Eliade’s utility in interpreting specific texts. Like Ouellet and Berner he applies Eliade’s work to understand specific historical situations, this time from Eliade’s earliest years in India interpreting the Upanishads. Despite Itu’s occasionally hagiographic approach, which bears certain stigmata of hero-worship, he makes some good points and is by no means uncritical of Eliade. Itu focuses on six untranslated Romanian articles published in Bucharest in the 30’s in the journal Cuvântul and the review Vremea and emphasizes the importance of recognizing Eliade as an Indologist. The paper considers some of Eliade’s commentaries on Hinduism from his years in India (1929-31) dealing with a major element of Hindu religion—the identity between God and the human soul (the “Brahman/atman equation”)— \\among other items from the Upanishads. Itu argues that Eliade was deeply influenced by Indian philosophies and religions. However, he also argues that, contrary to what Eliade states in these studies, the “way to God” in Hinduism is not through revelation but through direct intuition. Itu critiques Eliade’s opinion that revelation is determined by karma (action). On the contrary, argues Itu, God is the source of revelation: karma remains in connection with the phenomenal world while intuition springs from the human soul. The paper also criticizes Eliade’s claim that the Upanishads are not mystical. These texts are the very heart of Hindu mysticism and religion, because they insist on this unity between God and the human soul. Itu also concludes that Eliade confused non-attachment with indifference.'
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/IntEliIntro.htm
In relation to scholars who published on Mircea Eliade's Works and India, Natale Spineto from Università degli Studi di Torino (University of Turin) appreciates Itul's contribution as very complex emphasizing the influence of Indian culture on the Romanian historian of religions: ‘Su Eliade e l’India, la trattatione più ampia è quella di M. Itu, Indianismul lui Eliade, Brașov, 1997; dello stesso autore, L'indianisme de Mircea Eliade, tesi di dottorato, EPHE, Section des sciences historiques et philologiques, discussa a Parigi nel 1999. Sul’argomento, si vedano inoltre: A Barbosa da Silva, the Phnenomenology of Religion, in General and of M.Eliade’s Phnenomenological Approach in Particular, Uppsala 1982, pages 161-171; F. Scialpi, Condizione umana e liberazione nelle religioni dell’India, in L. Arcella, P. Pis, R. Scagno (a cura di), Confronto con Mircea Eliade, Archetipi mitici e identità storica, Milano 1998, pages 197-218.’ (On Eliade and India, the most complex analysis is that of M. Itu, Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade's Indology), Brașov, 1997; by the same author, L'indianisme de Mircea Eliade, Ph.D. thesis, EPHE, Section des sciences historiques et philologiques, presented in Paris 1999. On the topic, see also: A Barbosa da Silva, Phnenomenology of Religion, in General and of M.Eliade’s Phnenomenological Approach in Particular, Uppsala 1982, pages 161-171; F. Scialpi, Condizione umana e liberazione nelle religioni dell’India, in L. Arcella, P. Pis, R. Scagno (editor), Confronto con Mircea Eliade, Archetipi mitici e identità storica, Milano 1998, pages 197-218).[9] Why this citation was excluded in the final assessment of Mircea Itul (Mircea Itu)’s notability? Is it because it is in Italian? Are citations taken into consideration in an assement only if they are in English language?
Professor James W. Heisig, from the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, Nagoya, Japan comments on Itul (Mircea Itu):
https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1955
This is another citation on Mircea Itul (Mircea Itu) that I wished to add to the page and there are plenty others. I don’t have them all, but I have more.
II. LIBRARIES Mircea Itul page == Wall of text #3 and comprehensive analysis of every library that ever held a copy of the subject's work, by Clairec78}} on Mircea Itul’s deleted page. There are many other libraries in Romania that have books and articles by Mircea Itu, for example: Biblioteca Nationala (The National Library) in Bucharest, Biblioteca Academiei Romane (The Romanian Academy Library), Biblioteca Centrala Universitara din Iasi (The Central University Library in Iasi) etc.
The Romanian Academy Library, Bucharest
http://aleph500.biblacad.ro:8991/F/S9V3MR24GXMRTJND5JQYBUFK83VIGLF9PL7ITSLYXYGUAQ86CU-01185?func=find-b&request=mircea+itu&find_code=WRD&adjacent=N&local_base=RAL01&x=24&y=6&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=&filter_code_3=WYR&filter_request_3=&filter_code_4=WFM&filter_request_4=&filter_code_5=WSL&filter_request_5=
The National Library of Romania, Bucharest
http://alephnew.bibnat.ro:8991/F/CE8LIG539PSIXT39PSK3ACDA1JIC1MQMKQLGS9Q8Y24UTKX49J-06956?func=find-b&request=mircea+itu&find_code=WRD&adjacent=Y&local_base=NOCIP&x=19&y=8&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=&filter_code_3=WYR&filter_request_3=&filter_code_4=WFM&filter_request_4=&filter_code_5=WSL&filter_request_5=
The Central University Library, Iasi
http://193.231.13.17/vufind//Search/Home?lookfor=mircea+itu&type=all&submit=Cauta&page=1
Moreover, important libraries all over the world have books and articles by Dr. Itul in their catalogues, for example: Harvard University Library, The University of Chicago Library, UC Berkeley Library (please search under the pen name Mircea Itu), University of Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library and Taylor Institution Library), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bibliothek, Archives et Musée de la Littérature, Bibliothèque Royale, Bruxelles and others may come up during a professional search. There are also findings on Google Scholar by author (Mircea Itu) or citations. London Metropolitan University Library also lists findings about the subject.
Harvard University Library: 4 books on page 1 and books in which the subject is cited are from number 32 to 37 in the list of findings.
http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?institution=HVD&vid=HVD&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&mode=Basic&onCampus=false&displayMode=full&highlight=true&displayField=all&pcAvailabiltyMode=true&bulkSize=30&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cmircea%20itu
The University of Chicago Library
https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Search/Results?lookfor=mircea+itu&type=AllFields
UC Berkeley Library
http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/search
University of Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library and Taylor Institution Library)
http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=OXVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=mircea+itu&scp.scps=scope%3A%28OX%29&vl%28464773595UI1%29=all_items&vl%281UIStartWith0%29=contains&vl%28353692470UI0%29=any&vl%28353692470UI0%29=title&vl%28353692470UI0%29=any
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bibliothek (1 finding on the first page and 6 findings on the second page)
http://primo.kobv.de/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?ct=&pag=&indx=1&pageNumberComingFrom=4&dscnt=0&vl(1UI0)=contains&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cmirceaitu&vl(173155009UI0)=any&scp.scps=scope%3A(HUB_UB)%2Cscope%3A(HUB_EDOC)%2Cscope%3A(MAN_NL_ALL)%2Cscope%3A(HUB_ALEPH)%2Cscope%3A(hub_ebooks_all)%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&displayMode=full&tab=default_tab&dstmp=1453576216304&highlight=true&ct=PreviousPage&mode=Basic&dum=true&search_scope=HUB_ALL&indx=31&displayField=all&bulkSize=10&pcAvailabiltyMode=false&vl(freeText0)=mircea%20itu&vid=hub_ub&fn=search&institution=HUB
Archives et Musée de la Littérature, Bibliothèque Royale, Bruxelles
http://www.aml-cfwb.be/catalogues/general/auteurs/37194
Findings on Google Scholar by author (Mircea Itu) or citations
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=author:%22Mircea+Itu%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=new_articles&hl=en&imq=author:%22mircea+itu%22
London Metropolitan University Library
http://londonmet.worldcat.org/search?q=mircea+itu&fq=&se=%24d&sd=desc&dblist=638&start=1&qt=page_number_link
And many other examples are available. I am sorry for the wall of text, but it seems to me that you are ignoring evidence. Also you never answer questions. Here is my answer: yes, please send me the page! Thank you very much for your precious time!Clairec78 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
When you made this statement 'In particular, when editors talk about THE TRUTH in capitals, experience has told me that whatever claim they are asserting is probably false.', were you implying The Welsh's and 7&6=thirteen's comments!? Because if you are implying that, you are terribly wrong. They are outstanding Wikipedia editors who took a stand neither for me, nor for Itul, but for the truth or THE TRUTH, in capital letters (as per your opinion towards capital letters). Truth can also be proved by facts, by evidence, which has systematically been ignored and misled on Mircea Itu's page by other editors. And please do not call me 'editor'. I am just a Wikipedia user extremely disappointed by the experience I had and I am having on Wikipedia as a Wikipedia user, no matter Mircea Itul's page. In regards to Bryan S. Rennie citation 7&6=thirteen was absolutely right and not your 'consensus' editors. Please search under the pen name Mircea Itu, take a look and comment about the truth in this case: 'Bryan S. Rennie, Westminster College, Pennsylvania, the USA cites Itul and also appreciates his criticism on Eliade: 'Mircea Itu also writes on India and on Eliade’s utility in interpreting specific texts. Like Ouellet and Berner he applies Eliade’s work to understand specific historical situations, this time from Eliade’s earliest years in India interpreting the Upanishads. Despite Itu’s occasionally hagiographic approach, which bears certain stigmata of hero-worship, he makes some good points and is by no means uncritical of Eliade. Itu focuses on six untranslated Romanian articles published in Bucharest in the 30’s in the journal Cuvântul and the review Vremea and emphasizes the importance of recognizing Eliade as an Indologist. The paper considers some of Eliade’s commentaries on Hinduism from his years in India (1929-31) dealing with a major element of Hindu religion—the identity between God and the human soul (the “Brahman/atman equation”)— \\among other items from the Upanishads. Itu argues that Eliade was deeply influenced by Indian philosophies and religions. However, he also argues that, contrary to what Eliade states in these studies, the “way to God” in Hinduism is not through revelation but through direct intuition. Itu critiques Eliade’s opinion that revelation is determined by karma (action). On the contrary, argues Itu, God is the source of revelation: karma remains in connection with the phenomenal world while intuition springs from the human soul. The paper also criticizes Eliade’s claim that the Upanishads are not mystical. These texts are the very heart of Hindu mysticism and religion, because they insist on this unity between God and the human soul. Itu also concludes that Eliade confused non-attachment with indifference.'
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/IntEliIntro.htm
Would you mind to comment on this citation and the assessment of the 'consensus' editors, as well as your statement proved false here and on Mircea Itul's page? Thank you in advance and may you have a nice week!Clairec78 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article to a draft in User:Clairec78/Mircea Itul where the text can be retrieved and worked on. In my view, you have far too great an interest in this person above and beyond a normal editor wishing to simply write about a topic, and hence you must read the Conflict of Interest guidelines I showed you earlier. If you do not, you are at risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I won't bother you again, as I have noticed that you avoid to answer any of my questions. Sorry for the walls of evidence posted by me in the name of truth, but the walls around you seem the real walls. There is no conflict of interest here. How about Bryan Rennie's citation and the truth about it? How about your comment on my health status, to which you avoid to provide a medical evidence on my name, that really hurt my feelings? No worries you are not the only one as men, few of them, however, would say such things to women. Thank you again and sorry for disturbing you with evidence on the case. May you have a nice week-end! I agree with Xanthomelanoussprog. Thank you very much, Xanthomelanoussprog. That was precisely what I said! The link was previously in the text, the last Reference. I corrected the link in the draft, the first entry on Mircea Itul's page and draft. This page was deleted based also on this erroneous comment made by Agricola44. Thank you to all those who care for the truth.Clairec78 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Clairec78 might find the Bryan Rennie page to be a useful template for the draft article- Rennie is a notable scholar in the field of Mircea Eliade studies. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree; if the Itul page moves from draft, I'll trim it down to roughly the same length as the Rennie page. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Naomi Sager is an article about a research professor and scientist that we rescued from deletion some time back; that may be useful as a point of reference too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pall Mall, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry, Prince of Wales. 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) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your message

The editor in question called me a "scoundrel", a "dick" and many other things as well. He also compared my comments to a website written by a person alleged (in its Wikipedia article, to which he linked) to be schizophrenic. Don't you think it would be appropriate to say something to him about that? Those comments do look like personal attacks. Has it occurred to you that I was actually commenting on content? Do you think that my comment was an inaccurate assessment? Do you also realise that you could not use your tools here, because you are involved in the content dispute over the proposal? I am not going to answer that editor again in that thread. James500 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't be making comments to the effect that admins can block editors for violating an essay either. Any admin who did what you propose would have to be desysopped. James500 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that but I think leaving the MfD well alone is the right option, so no further action is needed. As I said on a related thread, the best way to protest against deletion, in my view, is to look at articles in CSD / PROD / AfD that don't meet the deletion criteria and improve them (examples here). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing that MfD again, as I appreciate that it is important to avoid supplying ammunition to anyone who might be looking for a pretext to effect bad blocks. What the best way to protest against deletion is or isn't, is not really relevant. It seems to me that further action is needed: it seems to me that, as an absolute minimum, a similar template should be placed on the talk page of the other user (who started the thing and to whom I said nothing that he didn't say to me first), or you should admit that placing a selective template was an error. James500 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You know something? I have similar conversations with my kids, who are what Wikipedia might describe as tweens. I catch one of them walloping the other one, or screaming at them, and they always say it was justified because he started it, he's much worse, he hit me, etc etc .... I end up playing them this now so they can laugh at how silly it is to squabble. I really don't want to come on here and see a grown man say the same thing. Stop trying to argue that everyone else's conduct is worse than you personally attacking someone, look at your own behaviour first, then pick an article off this list and improve it so it doesn't get deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not, at this stage, say that anything was justified, though I think that going straight to a level 4 template was certainly completely out of proportion. I pointed out that selective enforcement leaves the other party free to continue to make personal attacks. James500 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having given the matter careful consideration over some time now, I have come to the conclusion that the words you specifically complained of (the words that you quoted) were not a personal attack, were not capable of being a personal attack under any circumstances, and that you were in error in claiming that they were. James500 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Having given the matter further consideration, I have also come to conclusion that none of the other words used by me at the MfD constituted a personal attack, and I feel that your failure to say anything to the other editor concerned amounts to a tacit admission of this. I note that you and I were involved in a content dispute over whether the page at MfD was to be deleted, that you !voted in the MfD the same way as the other editor and the opposite way to me, that you did not template the other editor who supported your stance in the MfD despite his having said exactly the same things I did, that you have failed to give a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistency in placing templates, that you made an unwarranted suggestion that I altogether refrain from editing the MfD, and that the extreme wording of your modified template was in all respects completely 'over the top' (bearing in mind that you know that I would act on a polite request made in good faith, and not accompanied by an outrageous threat) and likely to greatly disturb a recipient of ordinary firmness (someone not unusually brave or timid). From this I infer that you were probably trying to use the allegations as leverage in the content dispute, to manipulate the outcome of the MfD by frightening away someone who disagrees with you. I also note that you and I have in the past been involved in many content disputes with each other, that our relations have never been particularly friendly, and that you have been in the habit of making arguably off topic comments in those disputes and endeavouring to dissuade other participants from answering WP:ALLARGUMENTS and generally trying to dissuade the other side from presenting the case for that side of the dispute properly. It seems to me that a natural and probable consequence of your inconsistent templating is to encourage the other editor to make personal attacks and engage in other unpleasant behaviour, and to make him think he can do that with complete impunity. Comparing me, or the other editor, to young children, aside from being offensive and possibly a personal attack (certainly by the standards you seem to want to hold me to), displays a complete failure to understand the dynamics of the situation. As for telling me to look only at my own faults, I refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, for an explanation of why that is not what happens in these cases. It seems to me that in your template you were probably threatening to use your tools while WP:INVOLVED. I infer this from the fact that you claimed that a block was certain to happen and, as far as I can see, no uninvolved admin agreed to do this for you, or even agreed that it should be done. It seems to me that this cannot be acceptable, indeed I am alarmed that you should even contemplate such an act, and in my provisional opinion, you should cease to be an admin. I therefore ask that you consider voluntarily resigning your tools. I also think it would be undesirable for you to place user warnings about alleged personal attacks on anyone's talk page in future, in order to avoid further inappropriate templates. And you should probably read WP:DNTR as well. I would be grateful if you would refrain, as far as our rules allow, from editing my user talk page in future for any reason. As for the MfD itself, I was going to suggest that a note be placed on it to the effect that you tainted it by intimidating one of the participants, but it is too late now. James500 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Need clarification, please

No snickering around here, chaps.

First, thank you for the unblock. Next, I need some clarification, just to make sure we're on the same page. My apologies for asking what several will likely think is a really stupid question, but for whatever reason, 1RR has never been clear to me, only from the standpoint of the (Wikipedia) meaning of the word "revert". Scenario: I go to an article, see a change that has been made which is incorrect/unsourced/vandalism/etc... I then revert what has been done. Is that the first revert, or is it 1RR if someone comes along and reverts my revert and I then revert their revert? Further, if I see blatant vandalism and revert in the manner of the above scenario, am I still going to be held to 1RR even if it is blatant, obvious vandalism (things like repeating characters, weird name changes, and so on)? As you doubtless already know, vandals will repeat the vandalism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: 1RR is like WP:3RR, except you replace the word "three" with "one". As you can see from the exemptions there, if somebody is blatantly vandalising an article, and you think it's something any reasonable editor would revert anyway, it doesn't count towards the one revert. A couple of other things I think are okay if you remove a message from your talk page and the poster re-adds it, you can remove it again, as we generally give more latitude to editors on their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I REALLY need specifics here (which is why I wrote the scenario s above). You addressed the vandalism scenario. Could you please address the first scenario as well? I don't want to have any misunderstanding on my part, get blocked, explain that I didn't understand such-and-so, and then be told I'm gaming the system/lying. Make sense? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me go with some real world examples. Take Ashford, Kent, last September as seen here. You wouldn't be violating your restriction by reverting 86.174.68.182 (not all admins sign off on a vandalism-only block with "cheerio", but there you go) even though they did the same vandalism multiple times. However, anything that is not obvious vandalism (ie: clearly and deliberately making Wikipedia worse), which includes adding unsourced content, something you disagree with, or poor writing, does count towards the 1RR restriction. Nobody's forcing you to edit, so if in doubt, don't revert; use the talk page instead. That's the whole point of these restrictions; less reverting, more discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I need to be more specific so you can answer what I'm asking. I get the vandalism scenario now, and you addressed that. My larger concern is an every day scenario, such as what I posted in the first scenario above. Which, in the first scenario, would be considered the 1RR - removing the content placed that is inaccurate; or removing it again after it is replaced by the original editor (or someone else)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Replying to hopefully allow a return to constructive article-space editing sooner. In a 0RR situation, (any) revert would result in a block; in a 1RR situation there is one revert "in hand" before the next revert action results in the block. (*There are extremely limited exceptions to the revert rules, looking at those listed in WP:3RRNO—there are two words highlighted in the policy "obvious" and "unquestionably" which perhaps together summarise the exceptions. The exceptional cases are such that it would likely better to prod another editor to undertake the relevant action and allow staying well clear and safe in the knowledge of not being in doubt). —Sladen (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen, why do you keep forcing yourself on me? Why do you keep thrusting yourself in my face when I've made it very clear I want no contact with or from you? The "thank" on an edit I made today at my talk page and the response here are the most recent examples of you inserting yourself into something I'm involved in. I want the response of the unblocking admin or an admin I trust. This has nothing to do with you, no one asked your opinion, and I've asked you countless times to leave me alone. Yet, just like at my talk page, here you are again. I don't get what seems to be your obsession with me. Whatever the reason for it, please stop. Follow me around if you must, but I don't want to know you're there. Capisce? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, thank you for expressing this desire. As a polite request, please consider notifying any others via the respective User talk: pages, so that those editors do not also unnecessarily cause discomfort as well. Hopefully there are still many other editors who are willing to help continue support along the way—another offer has been made by Ched. PS. Looking back at the page history, AFAICT my first edit to User talk:Winkelvi (in Special:Diff/671920870) appears to have been a gentle reminder about WP:NOBAN and removal of project notices in the middle of last year. Good luck. —Sladen (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi your comments to User:Sladen perfectly encapsulate how I feel about your stalking of my edits and casting false aspirations about me at ANi and all over Wikipedia. I kindly ask you to treat me like you ask User:Sladen to treat you and stay far away. I'm being as polite about this as I can be. I'm posting this here since you so call ban me from your talk page. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please folks - can we let Richie and WV discuss the details without having to inject personal snicker-snack? — Ched :  ?  00:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen is right. If in doubt, don't revert. For everything else, read WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't do vague. I do appreciate when questions I have asked are answered. Further, I fail to understand why people don't answer specific questions asked nor do I understand what WP:BEANS has to do with what I've asked you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if this helps:

1. You see an edit that is vandalism.
2. You revert it - not an issue
3. The vandal re-reverts
4. You can revert again and repeat these last two steps ad infinitum (though it might be an idea to log this at WP:AIV)

That's one scenario. Then there is:

1. An editor posts a note on your talk page saying "my edit was right and yours was wrong"
2. You revert it - nice to keep a clean talk page
3. The editor puts the note back
4. You revert it - okay because we give users enough leeway on their talk pages

The one to watch out for is:

1. You see an edit that changes a word from US to UK spelling
2. You revert it - that's your one revert gone
3. The editor re-reverts
4. You stop and use the talk page, or find one of the other 5 million articles to edit. STOP HERE. Otherwise....
5. You revert it - aaargh, 1RR violated
6. Drmies blocks you for edit warring and violating your restriction
7. You're now screwed because 1) Drmies is always right and 2) When Drmies is actually wrong, refer to rule 1

I can't make it any clearer than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's pretty much how it's going to work, except that Drmies isn't around often enough to be an autoblocker. I'm totally missing out on my regular WMF checks. (Yes, that's what 1R means: you get one revert. Vandalism etc., that's different.) Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Clear is what I asked for from the jump. Thank you for being clear this time. People on the autism spectrum need specific, clear, concise answers. People on the autism spectrum will often ask for specific, clear, concise answers because they know vague doesn't work for them. People on the autism spectrum like step by step responses, often with specific scenarios, so there is no second-guessing needed. People on the autism spectrum often do poorly when having to second guess. Not because they are stupid, but because they like to do things right the first time and because doing it the right way will give them an action-prompted model they can use the next time the same or a similar situation arises in the future. People on the autism spectrum like boundaries (obvious fences, if you will). A mature individual on the spectrum who is aware of their pragmatic limitations will ask for them. If a person on the autism spectrum is given a vague answer, and they take it for what it is worth to them (a vague, non-specific answer without clear boundaries that doesn't really answer their question), they can get into trouble because when they think they are doing something the right way they aren't. The person on the autism spectrum then is blamed for doing something wrong, crossing into territory they shouldn't have, however, in reality, it's the fault of the individual who didn't give a clear, specific, consider answer even when they were asked several times to please do so. Essentially, they were set up for failure, even though they asked not to be. In the world of Wikipedia, such blame rarely, if ever, goes to the right person (when this type of scenario comes up), rather, the individual committing the wrong due to incomplete data/information is slapped on the wrist or blocked. The administrator is congratulated, even though they gave incomplete information to begin with and will use the excuse, "I told you already" when, in fact they did not. Moral of the story: when someone asks you for a clear, concise, specific answer to scenarios given, please do as they ask. It's only fair (and unless someone like myself has made it public they are on the autism spectrum, you never know if they are on the spectrum or not) - not to mention it is the responsibility of a person who wields the power of the block button. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The best advice I can give you, Winkelvi, is to stay away from reverting vandalism more than once. This is not something I came up with myself: it's from another editor "on the spectrum", one who had difficulties in the revert business, so to speak. Esp. when there's a difference of opinion on what is vandalism and what isn't, it's best to stick to 1R. That's what that other editor did, and it served him well. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezone DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, canvassing for AfDs is not allowed. See me after class. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mircea Itul

Hi, Ritchie333,
Last month, you closed an AfD for this article with the closure to delete the article but it has been recreated. Could you look it over to see if it is a substantially improved version? I know that articles are quickly recreated after deletion discussions are usually deleted but this article looks like it has had some work done on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I userfied the article on request, it was then moved to mainspace, I've now moved it back and put an AfC header on it so it can be reviewed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ta very much!

Thanks for the Mellotron! I'll be learning the introduction to "Watcher of the Skies" on it. Prog on! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing Deletionismt

I wish you hadn't done that. I get that my opinions on Wikipedia are only counted at half value since I haven't been here 10 years, however I'd still appreciate having the ability to defend myself. Besides shutting down a contentious conversation doesn't contain it, it only makes it spread. And now I'm going to have to go to another editor's talk page just to defend myself. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's not that you haven't been here 10 years--it's that you have, what, 300 or so article edits and every time I click on a talk page or AfD or noticeboard, you're complaining about being oppressed/bullied/harassed--and false claims of harassment are, of course, harassment. You want to build up credit? Make article edits. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that is a bit unfair since he has less than 1,200 edits overall. (I've encountered deletionists with less than 5% of their edits in the mainspace or its associated talkspace, because they do nothing but AfDs. Likewise, I've encountered deletionists whose many thousands of mainspace edits consist almost entirely of removing as much content as they think they can get away with.) He also complains about deletionism, which is A Good Thing, as deletionism is by far and away the main threat to the project, and we could do with more anti-deletionists at AfD and on the talk pages of relevant policies, guidelines and essays. James500 (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. There don't seem to be any valid grounds for closing that thread. I'm not sure I approve of your direction to pick an article to improve from the list of articles tagged with the CSD A7 template. I suspect that the correct response is to direct you to create an article about one of the persons on this list. James500 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case, why not click here and put in a better source than The Sun for these biographies of living people? Honestly, I don't mind what you do as long it's in article space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletionist content of the project space is killing the article space and ignoring it is unfortunately not likely to make it go away. The content of the project space is a disaster of epic proportions, and it is getting worse because deletionists are constantly attacking it. If I tried to completely ignore that problem, I would be setting a bad example that others might copy. I'm afraid that I don't edit BLPs much, but I do have a new article in preparation. James500 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)