User talk:FRS

Welcome!

Hello FRS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Vsmith 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

afd helper[edit]

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman ^talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Ambedkar[edit]

Hi, I hv just noticed your edits on above where you deleted a section titled "22 vows" stating that it is copyvio. However, facts are never copyvio. For example, if I copy the list of Ten Commandments from a website, it would still not be copyvio as the list of commandments is accepted as a fact. Hence, I'd be reverting your edits after adding explanation in the talk page. --Gurubrahma 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, although "facts" are not subject to copyright, the "expression" of facts most definitely is. You have reattached over 300 words literally copied from here http://www.ambedkar.org/ without apparent permisssion of the copyright holder. Unless you have permission or it could be construed as "fair use", I believe it to be a copyvio. (By the way, the "Ten Commandments" are not subject to copyright because of their age, not because they are "facts.")

But even if the copyright status was resolved in favor of your position, it's my firm opinion that inclusion of all this copied material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, if you want to compose a summary of what the 22 vows are about, and how they relate to the subject's overall life and times, that would be most welcome.

You also reverted out without comment a number of other edits that, imo, made the article more appropriately NPOV.

I'll wait a reasonable time for you and others to comment, but my position is that this version of the article[[1]] is much preferable to what you reverted to. --FRS 17:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let me deal with the issues you raised in the reverse order. 1) While some of your copy-edit is good, you have removed information about his editing of a newspaper etc and other information about early life. It is wrong to say that I have not commented - look at the edit summary. 2) As far as the question of 22 vows being UE goes, there was a discussion on the talkpage and if u have viewpoints to profer, that would be the place (Pls. see the issues I have raised there). If I summarise 22 vows it wd be my POV. If I leave them as they are, ppl. can make their own inferences. 3) As far as the final issue of copyright goes, pls. look at [[2]], [[3]] - the first quoting 22 vows as they were taken and the second, refering to 22 vows at a later date. Just as Ten commandments would mean the same wording with the same meaning and the same sequence, 22 vows also remain the same. And you are mistaken abt "Ten Commandments" not being facts (facts in the sense of generally accepted wisdom) - you may ask a trusted editor. Finally, do not make statements such as "literally copied" as at least another website has the same info as well as some pamphlets and books. Why not check the reference you have added or some other book? Pls. assume good faith from editors who have been around for much longer, hail from the context that they are writing abt (e.g. India) and who hv been working on an article on continuous basis. You'd hv noticed anon IPs re-adding 22 vows w/o discussion - that pretty much happens because they are not of good faith. And btw, I am a strong Gandhian (look at my efforts in fighting vandalism on Mahatma Gandhi) with academic interest in Ambedkar.--Gurubrahma 17:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gone through your copyedits - it looks much more NPOV, thanks for that. However, you've stated above that you'd wait for a reasonable time and yet deleted the 22 vows. I've re-added the 22 vows, leaving your copyedit intact. And you hv not answered my queries above e.g. wrongly accusing me of deleting material w/o explanation etc. Typically, whenever a problem such as this crops up, the right place to ask may be the notice board of that specific country. Regards, --Gurubrahma 08:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I "wrongly accused" you of deleting material w/o explanation. I said, accurately, that "you reverted out without comment a number of other edits" which we now agree were, for the most part, improvements. I didn't intend it as an accusation, but merely an observation, which led, as I had hoped it would, to a discussion of the substance of editing task. Anyway it is to me a minor side issue, now resolved. If I inadvertently offended you please accept my apologies.--FRS 16:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I objected to "without comment" since my edit summary was quite clear. Anyways, you hv restored that bit and copyedited it, making it look much better. Am sorry if I was not clear enough and if I hurt you. Thanks are also due for the style-edit you made in the 22 vows. imo, It doesn't matter if 22 vows and his last 7 days take 10% of the article, 'coz they reflect upon his evolution frm trying to co-exist with Hinduism and finally denouncing it. In some articles such as Rajneesh and Mother Teresa,criticism takes up >40%. wd definitely take a look at Babbar Khalsa. Warm regards, --Gurubrahma 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed![edit]

The link on the talk page has now been fixed. Silly templates... --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 15:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network[edit]

Hi! As per AfD suggestions, I rewrote the ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network article. Since you voted there, I thought you'd like to know. --William Pietri 03:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Medical Association[edit]

Thanks for your excellent compromise text on the AMA article, and for pointing out my error. You are an asset to the WP. Danlovejoy 22:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring log-in for editing: a good idea[edit]

I've finally done something about the anonymous edit situation, rather than just bleating about it in my edit summaries! laying the case before the Village Pump (here). I encourage everyone to support the move on Village Pump; and in the edit summaries of your reverts to link there — although I've been completely unable to figure out how to do it. . . . Best, Bill 13:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!![edit]

I hereby award FRS the *Exceptional newcomer butterfly barnstar* for being bold in NPOV aspects. --Gurubrahma 06:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FRS, thanks a ton for voting on my RfA. The final tally was 50-0-0. While I did not agree with you entirely during our first encounter on B. R. Ambedkar, I was impressed that you cared for NPOV and were bold. You've been doing great work in fostering NPOV on Wikipedia and have showed a willingness to engage other editors in discussion, such as in Talk:Babbar Khalsa. I do believe that you will work whole-heartedlty in making Wikipedia, a much better place. For your sincere efforts, I feel that the butterfly would be an appropriate compliment. btw, you've removed the stuff abt three jewels in Ambedkar article. That may be appropriate per WP:V as we do not seem to hv any online source for that; however, I believe the information is correct (abt mass conversions twice within the space of ten days and administering only the vows the second time) as I remember reading that info in an Amar Chitra Katha comic more than a decade back. --Gurubrahma 06:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Ambedkar image[edit]

Firstly, a quick factual correction: the B. R. Ambedkar image wasn't uploaded by an anonymous IP: it was uploaded by Praneeth11, as the page history clearly shows.

Onto the more substantive issue: the copyright on a photo belongs to the photographer, and will (in general) expire 70 years after the death of the photographer (in the US and the EU, anyway). Hence I think it's more than possible that it is still covered by copyright and as such can't be used on Wikipedia. Without some form of definitive evidence that the image is no longer covered by copyright, I think the best thing to do is to delete the image.

There's also now a technical issue: the image has now been deleted from Wikipedia, and (unlike articles) backups of images aren't kept in the database, so the only way to restore the image now would be from a backup of the database. --Pak21 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with reference to the above, you may be interested in having a look at this. --Gurubrahma 05:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfB[edit]

Hi FRS,

I have replied to your vote, and after some consideration, you're right. I apologize for any comments that I have made. Please see my RfB and your vote for the rest of the story.

Kind regards, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may interest you some: User:Linuxbeak/Brandt_letter

Kind regards, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Examination Rejected[edit]

You requested a copyright examination regarding a text authored in India in 1956. Sadly copyright examinations is not the right place for your request. The most common reason is that the content has already been added/uploaded to Wikipedia. Such cases (violations or not) are taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

If, after careful reading of the copyright examinations page, you still think it is the right place for your request, use the copyright examinations talk page to discuss the case.
If you have problems trying to find the appropriate place for your request, consult the copyright problems talk page.

Your request will eventually be moved to List of requests which don't belong here on the copyright examinations page. Please try to find the right place for your request as soon as possible. We hope that your request will find the right place and get answered. --Easyas12c 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W.marsh's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism redirect again[edit]

Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [[4]] IronDuke 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]