User talk:SoWhy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

LundXY

I am trying to edit the LundXY entry. I have no commercial interest in the company, but I recognise its current (and future) importance, particularly in funding humanitarian projects, so I've been working through it and polishing it up, adding references where necessary and taking out peacock terms etc. My argument is that this entry is very much in the public interest, as it is and will be an important source of funding for startups aimed at improving quality of life in developing countries, included basic necessities of life, like clean water supply. If you actually check the current references yourself you should realise that this is a significant company.

I'd appreciate if you could explain to me why it's being tagged as being too much like an advert? What do I need to do to avoid this charge?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljon72 (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your posts on talk pages with --~~~~. Secondly, read the explanation on Talk:LundXY#Reads_like_advert why this tag has been placed on the page. Please do not remove such tags without correcting the points that were mentioned on the talk page. I have not read the article and I have no knowledge of the content. You might want to talk to User:Evb-wiki who placed the tags. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was still editing when you added the tag.

So you admit you have no knowledge of the industry. I wonder if Evb-wiki has any personal knowledge of the European technology investment scene? Probably not. But my point is, that's what the references are for at the bottom!

ThanksLjon72 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not add it, I reverted you removing it. Because you removed it without making any other changes and thus I assumed that you did not in fact make the necessary changes. I have no idea if evb-wiki has the knowledge, he added it at least.

After reading the article now, I think you might be correct. I advise you use edit summaries in the future to clarify those edits, allowing people to understand what you did on this article. I have thus removed the tags from the page and am sorry for the earlier edit caused by this misunderstanding. Have fun on Wikipedia! --SoWhy ^Talk 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

I noticed you're a good German speaker. I'm wondering if you could help out at WikiProject Munich. Maybe you could help out with the project's Translation page. If you're interested, you can sign up here. Kingjeff 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I might take a look but I don't think I got much time on my hands. I will keep an eye on it thought :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No first hand knowledge is necissary. Remember no original research is allowed anyways. Maybe you could help out someway. Kingjeff 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NCIS Episode Template

No problem, for the most part I've been copying other episodes formatting and replacing relevant parts. Template should help quite a bit! :) --Sigz 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NCIS Kill Ari

I feel it should be two separate episodes (as should Hiatus) because they aired on different dates. If it was a continuous two hour episode then they could be one page, however they are different. Joining these episodes would be the same as joining any other episodes. Just because they have the same title (with a part 1 + 2) doesn't mean they belong in the same article. Mhrmaw 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Can you please show me the Wikipedia guideline that says already aired episodes of television shows don't need references? I would like to understand it for future reference. According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes it says:

Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Thanks. Shaundakulbara 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If this was the case, you'd have to tag thousands of articles (of movies and television episodes alike). Articles about episodes that have aired already can be verified by everyone just by watching the episode. References are needed in those cases, where this can't be done, i.e. future episodes or trivia which needs background information. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the case. The fact that a guideline hasn't been applied to "B" doesn't mean they shouldn't be applied to "A'. That's been said to me many times. I appreciate your frustration that you think I am meddling in an inappropriate way. I have been in your shoes, and that feeling sucks. But the guidelines do apply. The idea that articles can "be verified by everyone just by watching the episode" doesn't make the grade. Please don't remove notability tags. Shaundakulbara 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaundakulbara your interpretation of our sourcing guidelines is wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As Matthew said, I doubt you are right because that would mean everyone else was wrong for years. I understand you feel special but let me assure you that you are surely not the first to notice that thousands of articles could be wrong if WP:V is to applied the way you suggest it. If you want to tag all those articles as unverified, I'd suggest you discuss it on the appropriate talk pages first and don't start lecturing me for removing them.

WP:V clearly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.

Ex contrarium material that does not fall into this category, i.e. simple facts like the plot of aired episodes. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Following guidelines for album infoboxes

Regarding this, I never said that either WP:ALBUM or WP:FLAGCRUFT were policy. I do however think we should consider following guidelines unless we have a good reason not to, and was trying to explain that the guideline exists for a reason, part of which I think is to avoid WP:FLAGCRUFT. Another part is that including the release date of every country an album has been released in can cause the list of dates and countries (or flags, if used) to get very large. Using only the first release date therefore makes the infobox more concise. So far the only argument you've brought up is "The box is there to summarize the most important details." which might as well be used to support following the guidelines. Let me ask you two questions: Why specifically do you think we should not follow the guidelines in this case? And how many flags do you consider to be the optimal number for the release date field in an album infobox of an album released in say thirty countries, in general? --PEJL 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, completely unrelated: I happened to notice your note to self at the bottom of your user page. Consider using {{clear}} instead, for reasons noted there. --PEJL 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple actually: The box is there to allow a quick overview of the essential facts of an album. And yes, there are more important and less important countries in this case: The country of origin, the USA and the first country (if different) are three release dates that are important imho. If there are more, they could be added like the List of languages in the infobox here, might be an idea. But with only 3 dates, I don't see the reason to have only one of them. Three don't make it any less concise. In fact, only one makes it less concise because May 4th in this case is only one single country but worldwide was May 7th and is actually more important then.

Thanks for the tip with {{clear}}. I was not aware of it when I added that note. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable argument, but it doesn't seem to apply specifically to this album any more than to any other album. Would you consider making this argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, to possibly change the guideline? I think it is useful to have guidelines that actually reflect best practices, and to have consistency among album articles. --PEJL 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole problem I have with that Project in the first place: It is a bunch of guidelines but none discussed. Some weeks ago all albums had multiple release dates in their info-boxes, then someone came and decided to write something to the WP:ALBUM page and all of a sudden those have to be changed. But I will take this to the talk page and try to see if there can be a change to the guidelines, not because I think them binding, but because I'd like a change on the other albums as well. For now, please do not revert back my edits anymore, please. OK? --SoWhy ^Talk 18:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that changes to WP:ALBUM are not discussed. I try to discuss all possibly controversial changes I make, and at least recently, so does everyone else. If someone makes a change that has not been discussed it can be brought up for discussion and reverted pending the outcome of that discussion. I also dispute that this was changed a few weeks ago. I just looked at the versions of WP:ALBUM from exactly one and exactly two years ago, and they both had the exact same phrasing ("The Released date should refer to the earliest known date."). I also dispute that all albums contain multiple release dates (a few weeks ago or now). I don't have any numbers, but I doubt even a majority of them do (or did). I think discussing any issues you have with the guidelines is a good idea, and promise to not revert anything that is being discussed. --PEJL 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As Tall as Lions

Whether other articles have them or not is immaterial. Fair use of an album cover may only be used in an article discussing the album. To use them on an article about the artist is a copyright violation. Corvus cornix 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So all other articles are wrong and you are right? More over, deleting any links to the albums from the artist's article is needed why exactly? --SoWhy ^Talk 10:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no choice about deleting the entire discography, because it was set up as a gallery, and there was no way to keep the album info without the images. Your creation of a table, as you did, is the proper way, I always have problems with tables. Please read the fair use rationales on the album cover image pages. They specifically say that they can only be used to illustrate articles about the albums. Any other use is specifically indicated to be a copyright violation. And yes, all other articles which have album covers, which are not album articles, are wrong. Corvus cornix 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But you did delete the whole discography paragraph of the article instead of just removing the images...that's why I put a new one in place...next time, leave at least the albums without any table or anything if you don't know how to do tables :-)

And have fun cleaning up the huge number of articles with galleries ;-) --SoWhy ^Talk 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I had no choice, since it was a gallery, not a table. Corvus cornix 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of NCIS episodes

Hey. So have we resolved the issue? I still don't think any of the sources are valid although the CBS's wiki seems to be monitored by a moderator. I'm going to leave the CBS's wiki as the only source to be cited since it appears to be more reliable than the others. Regards, Ladida 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry for not replying, I had a lot to do these last days. You have read my mind, I wanted to argue the same way, that the CBS wiki's information was added by a moderator who also watches it and thus has a certain level of credibility. And allow me to thank you for all the work you have done on the NCIS episodes. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your work has not gone unnoticed either. :) Regards, Ladida 11:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chimera

I won't have time in the next few weeks because of exams. I can do it after they finish if no one else has done them. Regards, Ladida 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellow NCIS Fan...

... I know a place for you to help with your NCIS knowledge. here is a wiki in need of help. I'm a user over on that wiki known as General Grham. We really need any help we can find. Thanks! Mooapau ^{Talk to Me NCIS wiki} 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Because it's not necessary to note in the lead that he has no last name, most people can assume that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about assumptions. And it has to be mentioned, because it was mentioned explicitly(!) in an episode, stating that he is "too poor to have a last name" (not like other characters which simply don't have them or where it was not revealed). So I think it should be included and I cannot think of a single policy that discourages it. Also, if you do remove things, specify the reasons if not really obvious. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a one-off joke and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. We try to avoid mentioning minor things on character pages, and something that minor shouldn't go in the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the guideline that classifies this as "minor joke". A lot of informations in all character articles have only be mentioned once and yet are included. So please show me where it says that not having a last name is not important, I think it is. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it couldn't be in the article, I said it shouldn't be in the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If the character's forename is given in the lead, there is no reason why the last name (or the lack of such) shouldn't be noted there (unless you can show me where it says so). See e.g. List of recurring characters from The Simpsons#Eddie and Lou which does the same. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you really can't compare them because Willie has its own page while Eddie and Lou have small sections on a cluttered page that desperately needs clean up. By the way, according to an issue of Simpsons comics, his full name is William MacMoran. SO if we mention that he doesn't have a last name in the lead, we'd have to mention that, plus the fact that he temporarily had the name G. K. Willington, Esq. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is mentioned in the same paragraph. Simpsons comics are usually not considered canon, so "William MacMoran" can be added as well in the article but with the note that it's non-canon. "G. K. Willington, Esq." is an alias used only once, it could be added but not necessarily because it was only used in a single episode. Whether or not he has a last name is important for the character itself and is not centered around a single episode. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the final time, I am not saying that this stuff can't be mentioned in the article, I'm saying it shouldn't be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" which means only important things should be mentioned, and the fact that there was a one-off joke where Willie once said he has no last name is trivial and doesn't belong in the section. You can go ahead and add it to the article, it just shouldn't be in the lead as the fact that no last name is listed usually means he doesn't have one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the first time you cited the guideline you base it on and while I still disagree, I will leave it at that. On a side note, you should not delete information like this when in fact, as you pointed out, it should be placed somewhere else. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you see, I assume that most users have read and understand the policy, which is why I normally don't cite it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have some other things to do in my life than to read all of WP's countless guidelines. That's why I asked you to tell me. Now that you did, I thank you for doing so and wish you a nice day. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bid farewell

Indeed! Thanks for fixing that. :) Regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for correcting it in the first place, otherwise I'd have never noticed it ;-) --SoWhy ^Talk 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, SoWhy! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for fixing my typo's on the mini drones paragraph of drone weapons. Spelling was never my strong point, but I though it was worth noting the mini drones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.115.172 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you are using Firefox, consider using the "Check my spelling as I type" (Tools => Options => Advanced => General/Browsing) option, which will make it much easier to check the spelling of text fields. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NCIS

First off, I am not required by wikipedia policy to create a user account, so your insinuation that to be taken seriously I need one, is wholly out of line. Secondly, find me a source that says that there was ever a character named Vivian Blackadder that appeared on the NCIS television show. Show me where on tv.com, imdb.com, the first season of the dvd, this character appeared. I notice that we're not counting Raab as a former character on NCIS, nor any of the other people who were in the JAG show where the NCIS team first appeared. Your insinuation that "she appears in the NCIS universe" is ridiculous. Tony frequently talks about movies, actresses, models, etc...they all appear in the NCIS universe too?? Are they worth mentioning? Vivian Blackadder was NEVER an NCIS character. She has never appeared on a single solitary episode of the show. The fact that the team was introduced on a separate show does not mean that she appeared on THIS show. A quick check of the actresses filmography will show that she's never appeared on NCIS. A quick study of the episode listing will show that Ice Queen and Meltdown are JAG episodes, not NCIS. You claim that simply reverting is wrong, yet you're the one starting an edit war and insisting that false information be included in an article, then demanding that I create a user account. Get serious. 74.142.88.126 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I asked for a user account because if you use IPs, any vote on a topic will be very easy to manipulate.

Then, to your claims: tv.com, imdb.com etc. are not acceptable sources for information because, like Wikipedia, the information can be contributed by anyone. I could add her to all those sources with ease. Second, Raab is a JAG character who has it's own page. I said, she was in the JAG/NCIS universe, not the NCIS universe. They both share one, as multiple episodes show. It is never stated she appeared on NCIS (read the edits you did before deleting them), so I don't see, where your problem is. We are not talking about real people's life here but characters in a TV universe. And thus we simply do not know what happened to her during the time of Ice Queen and Yankee White, she might still have been on Gibbs' team and just not appeared on the show.

We reached consensus long ago to count Ice Queen and Meltdown as "Introductory episodes" and list them on List of NCIS episodes. Thus all non-JAG characters (which already have their own page) appearing to work for NCIS are NCIS-characters, which only affects one character but nonetheless.

I did not start an edit war as it was you who insisted on changing consensus without discussion after it's been reverted (see WP:EW). An edit war does not mean that my viewpoint is right or your viewpoint is wrong, but it means that we should talk about it. You should always consider that you could be wrong, see WP:GF. Have a nice day --SoWhy ^Talk 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no votes on wikipedia, consensus is worked towards and can be changed, nonetheless...there is no voting. There was NEVER discussion on including a character who never appeared on NCIS on a listing of NCIS characters. You're being disingenuous by stating that the discussion about the two JAG episodes counts, and should extend to characters who never appeared on NCIS being included in a listing of NCIS characters. Notwithstanding my thoughts about including the JAG episodes at all, it's blatantly false and wrong to include Vivian Blackadder as a character on NCIS. It's not a page for NCIS team characters, it's a page for characters who have appeared on the SHOW NCIS, not in the same universe. Again, I contend that you're being disingenous by stating that a consensus was reached on including that character, no discussion ever took place on that topic. 74.142.88.126 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, nobody is denying it. But it does not change because you change things. You see Characters of NCIS as article to list only people that appeared on NCIS excluding the pilot while we count the pilot episodes as NCIS episodes on the list of episodes. If you didn't count them, then of course you'd be right. But if they are seen as episodes of NCIS as well as JAG, then NCIS characters appearing there should of course be included in other articles about the show. You are free to argue to remove Meltdown and Ice Queen from the list but as long as they count as NCIS episodes it's characters do count as NCIS characters. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV violence

I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack's gun

Hi; I've reverted your edit again as if the information is there only to speculate as to how River could have Jack's gun, then it's original research. If Moffat said so on Confidential (I don't know), then that needs to be cited. Otherwise, the detail is relevant only to "The Doctor dances", or maybe "The Parting of the Ways". Thanks. ??TreasuryTag (talk ? contribs)?? 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He says so on Confidential and the ref was already there. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So it is, pardon me. I'll revert myself. sorry! :-( ??TreasuryTag (talk ? contribs)?? 14:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad we could sort it out. Maybe it can be phrased better though. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

UKTV

...is most emphatically not BBC in Australia. It is majority owned by Rupert Murdoch, shows commercial UK television and even non-UK content. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's the station the BBC link themselves as the channel that airs their shows and also in that case with TW, we have a source for it being aired on UKTV, we have no other. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

...is why I'm not saying put the claim back; just don't say they're the BBC. Is all. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I phrased it incorrectly, thanks for pointing that out. I will try to avoid such mistakes in the future :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's cool; and I appreciate the effort you've put in. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy; as of today the BBC and Foxtel have announced an agreement which will see UKTV become one hundred percent BBC, with other BBC channels to be available through cable. Nicely anticipated! MartinSFSA (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I seem to be gifted^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth

I sympathize, but I think its important to retain broad edibility - just revert the stupid as it comes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It was common use with all the other episodes of this series before. It served us well before, so I'd say it will serve us again. --SoWhy ^Talk 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Harriet's dead (Officially, back home. So many people went missing that day. She's on the list of the dead). Russell explicitly confirmed her death on This Morning... well, this morning. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it sourced? I just changed it because in the episode, we do not see her die. We just see Daleks closing in on her and thus I rephrased it to reflect what is seen on screen. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done. And by the way, "ostensibly" means "to all outward appearances", or "plausibly rather than demonstrably true or real". Sceptre ^(talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

KP Singh

REf to your message undoing my post on KP Singh..I am of the firm belief that corruption and crony capitalism can be called by any other name but it would not change. Thus If there is a crime committed by KP Singh then it is my moral duty to let the world know about it. Unless you are being paid by the company or the company has agreed to fund or donate to Wikipedia. In case you are a wikipedia administrator and based in germany you can send me your email id and I will scan the written proof of his misdoings and you could have the privilege it posting it on the net.

This isnt my personal view but a legal position. If someone wrote about Adolf Hitler that he committed genocide and had concentration camps...would that be against NPOV policy of wikipedia???

Kanishka Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishkasingh08 (talk • contribs)

No, you can't. The article is currently written in a POV manner, glorifying the subject, which was the reason, why a POV-template was added. You should not remove those templates. NPOV does not mean, there cannot be negative things about people said, read Adolf Hitler for example. But the style should be neutral and all claims verifiable by reliable sources.

But Wikipedia is no place to post things just because you see a moral to post them. I am based in Germany incidentally, but I am not administrator. It would not matter, as the source must be available to everyone. I think you are biased on this subject and thus should not edit the article anymore, but rather let those who are not biased correct it. The fact that your edits have been reverted multiple times by other editors are proof that the bias is not on my side. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

mistake regarding dalits

please check the discussion page we have already had discussion regarding this. it is not dalit "outcaste". you can re-type the redirect link as dalit "untouchables" please make the necessary changes. dalits are the lowest caste in the indian systems not outcaste. although the caste system is actually abolished in india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs)

I only reverted the edits back to the redirect. The correct article is Dalit, thus all other articles such as Dalit (outcaste) are only redirects and their existence does no harm but allows to avoid problems, as this was the former name of this article. Please do not blank such articles because they are helpful when people follow old links and will be redirected to the correct article.

Also, please sign your talk page entries with --~~~~. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks sowhy but we had a 6 page discussion regarding the fact that it is not "outcaste" since dalits are in the caste system. can you change the redirect link to dalit "untouchables". that is the correct consensus that we have come to after 6 pages of discussion thanks.Arjuna316 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to change anything. It is just a redirect page, nothing more. It does not carry any information or make any statement about the topic. It just links those who follow it there via a link to Dalit. There is no reason to change it. It is, as I said above, only to make it easier for people who follow a link to it (because it was once the article name) to be directed to the correct article. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

sowhy it DOES make a statement. all the people have had a 6 page discussion we are really extremely tired. dalit(outcaste) does not make any sense, dalit(untouchable) makes sense. an outcaste are the britishers for eg. who are foreign to indian culture. we are all really tired. you can follow the entire discussion in the dalit talk section. please change the redirect link from dalit(outcaste) to dalit(untouchable). i have mentioned countless times before that i am dalit myself. but i want the right history to be told not the wrong one. like i said before you can follow the entire discussion that we had on the dalit talk section. i would greatly appreciate it if you can change this redirect link from dalit (outcaste) to dalit (untouchables). thanks for your help. Arjuna316 (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I do not care about the correct terminology, I have no idea about the subject. But I do care that a great deal of pages still link to Dalit (outcaste) and people clicking on those links should be redirected to Dalit. Changing the redirect link to Dalit (untouchables) would not benefit anyone, because you'd have to redirect to Dalit from there then, but you can't, because the software does not allow double redirects. So, please read up on redirects and try to understand, what the page is doing and more important, what it isn't. You will see hopefully that your frustration is entirely misplaced as this is only a matter of technology and none of any caste or race or whatever system. --SoWhy ^Talk 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the vandalism on my talk page. :) Much appreciated. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Also, thanks for those protects you are doing, a great service for the project :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 13:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)