User talk:Utcursch/archive/11

Archives: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

---

Thank You

I appreciate the heads up.

Sincerely,

NinaEliza 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:)

• blush*Oyvind 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism in modern India

I've moved the article to Buddhism in modern India. I hope this will end the move war. User:Hkelkar and User:AMbroodEY were justified in moving the article to "Dalit Buddhist movement", because currently the article talks only about Ambedkar and his followers. I will add some information about others. Hi utcursh,

I believe the current title is inappropriate one... the article specifically talks about Buddhist sect founded by Dr.Ambedkar commonly referred to as Neo-Buddhism. We already HAVE an article on Buddhism in India!

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The name is proper. Because India got independance since 1947 and we also became one country. The Buddhist conversion Movement initiated by Dr. Ambedkar is in 1956. So the title is proper. It is true because of separation of Buddhism from Hinduism and 22 vows many Hindus don't like the the minority Buddhists in India but that is not our problem. Pkulkarni 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pkulkarni

Yep he definitely appears to be our man PK aya Kulkarni.. anyways

check this edit where he slurs Buddhists! Wierd...

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Buddhism in modern India

As you were involved in the discussions, I thought you would like to see this. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:P K aya Kulkarni also indef-blocked as suspected sockpuppet of Pkulkarni. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your help

Hi. thanks for your help, in keeping an eye one my user page (specifically, the following: Utcursch (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 209.155.49.3 (talk) to last version by Sm8900)

however, actually, 209.155.49.3 is me. So that IP address is ok. i appreciate the help though. Very impressed with how you guys are on the job. i'm a little curious; is there a regular function of Wikipedia, or do you happen to check this from time to time? thanks for your help. see you. --Sm8900 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

hi. that's good to know! very interesting. thanks for your reply. keep up the good work. see you. --Sm8900 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again

I appreciate you letting me know about the move. I posted my approval on the talk page. NinaEliza 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pkulkarni...

Our friend PK seems to be running a bigger sock empire then we first suspected. He even has strawmen sockpuppets!

See Hindushudra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Shudra123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have trolled Maratha, in nearly same fsahion as Pkulkarni. See [1] , [2] & [3].

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten socks! Record for a South India editor, I guess! utcursch | talk 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dalit Buddhist Movement

Thank you for the re-write, it looks like a viable article now. I appreciate your effort.

On a side note, I'm afraid that I can do no more than to check occasionaly on the page. It's not that I no longer care, but frankly it's accumulated to much "baggage" for me at this time. I also have a limited number of hours on Wikipedia, and as a fairly new user it takes me longer to get things done. Given the current circumstance of my personal life, I feel it best that I work on things that actually alleviate my stress. I also do a bit of reading in that regard as well (such as your rewrite). I hope you understand. All the best, NinaEliza 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly alright, edit what you enjoy :) utcursch | talk 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thanks for reviewing me, I appreciate your sentiments and will take your advise. Thanks again, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Blcoked user reverting Copyvio messages anonymously

Hi, Please see this. User:Srkris who is under one week block has been editing anonymously and removing copyvio messages. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Your Enthusiasm for Spam Link Removal Is A Minority Opinion

But I thank you for it, in any case. If you've dealt with such issues in the past, I'd love some support in either obtaining mediation or a third opinion on the ongoing attacks that arose out of my link spam removals.

Please note that the above user is an owner of a commercial OTR website (www.digitaldeliftp.com) who charges access to radio shows on his website. The sites he is removing are sites which offer people access to radio shows FOR FREE. Because the content is free, easily accessable and very relevent for the pages in question, they qualify for inclusion. What the above user is doing is simply trying to remove all links giving free access to the same type of OTR shows he CHARGES for. He is editing here in bad faith. PrinceAl 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the continued personal attacks, or shooting the messenger. Following me from page to page is abuse, and won't be tolerated much longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Who are you threatening? Me or the Wikipedia Foundation? 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Its my website!

Chembai.com belongs to me!!! I have every right to upload my own images and no one has the right to remove them by calling it copyvio. --59.92.46.252 12:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The idiot called Venu62 is already aware of it.

And please talk sense. just because one person agreed with you that the newspaper images are copyvio doesnt mean that it is wikipedia's official policy.--59.92.46.252 12:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About images from Chembai.com: I am sure you're aware of Wikipedia policy about copyrights. If the site belongs to you, please do any of the following:

1. Display a notice somewhere on the site http://www.chembai.com/, saying that this content is licensed under GFDL, and permission is granted to Wikipedia for using this content. If you are indeed the webmaster/owner of this website, this should not be difficult for you. If you are not the owner, but have authored the content, please ask the owner/webmaster to display such a notice.
2. Send an e-mail from an address associated with chembai.com (eg. webmaster@chembai.com, contact@chembai.com etc.) to permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org saying that you explicity permit the use of this content under GFDL.

The image will be tagged with Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS once the status is confirmed.

About images from The Hindu website: More than one person has agreed with me. If you are User:Srkris, you are the only person who disagrees.

Also, please don't make personal attacks such as "idiot". I've no enmity with you, or any friendship with User:Venu62. I'm just against people uploading images from other sites and tagging them as GFDL or public domain. Thanks. utcursch | talk 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if more than 10 persons agree with you, it doesnt mean you are right and I'm wrong. I'm merely saying that Venu62 is a total .... and he already knows that its my website, so that's why he removed chembai.com from external links of Chembai. I did not add it back because I have no wish to violate wikipedia policy. I am just asking you not to use your admin powers to show your might against me. If you can show me official wikipedia policy that says low-res scans from newspapers are copyvio, I will gladly stop. Venu62's actions are not in good faith and he is exploiting the little bit of ambiguity in wikipedia's policies. It is very clearly specified by wikipedia that "low-res" newspaper pictures are allowed. I can prove it is my site, but can I ask you to not tag the pictures copyvio till then? --59.92.46.252 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've never used (and never will) my "admin powers to show my might against you". About Chembai.com images, fine. I'm not tagging those images as copyvio. I hope I'll soon see those images tagged with Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS. As about "low-res newspaper pictures", I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems on December 5, 2006. This is a clear copyright violation[4]. utcursch | talk 12:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. See http://chembai.com

I am aware that you have sought "opinions", and one user has responded with "his opinion". Opinions of individual members do not constitute wikipedia's official policy.

Wikipedia's fair use policy states (and I quote below verbatim):

"As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available."

It further advises uploaders to include the following info:

Historical photographs

== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==

The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

1. it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual;
2. it is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality)
3. the photo is only being used for informational purposes.
4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public. ~~~~

I think the above is clear by itself, needing no further explanation. The newspaper images I uploaded are not hi-res images, and certainly does not affect the market of the newspaper or the photos since they cant be used commercially as their resolution is very low. Hence they are allowed as per my understanding of wikipedia's policy. 59.92.83.63 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)