User talk:Govindaharihari/Archive 2

Marilyn Manson Article Proposed Edits

   I hope i'm doing this right. I was told to go to a talk page by Govindaharihari, and as the talk page attached to the Marilyn Manson article appears to be infrequently checked, I thought I would post here as well. If this is wrong, please correct me and explain to me the proper course of action. 

    I'm a new user and I keep trying to add some information to the Marilyn Manson article, but it keeps getting rejected and I'm not sure why. Manson has mentioned this information in several interviews. I can keep piling on the sources, but I am a bit confused about why a Larry King interview from his official Youtube channel and registration documents from the United States Patent and Trademark office aren't being considered legitimate. I registered for an account the first time my edits were rejected because I received a message saying that my edits would be taken more seriously if I did. I also rewrote the contribution and dug up two additional sources. I provided links to increase the chances of my edits being approved, but it is my understanding that links are not required by Wikipedia to legitimize the information. It is my understanding that I could just give enough information for readers to look up the information themselves (something that, I believe, giving the date of the interview, the name of the person performing the interview, and also giving the serial number and registration date of Manson's trademark would allow anyone to do).  I thought everything was collaborative, so I assumed if my citations were wonky (which is definitely the case since I don't know html very well) that someone would help fix it. I am getting very discouraged by the fact that my edits keep getting rejected in full without much comment.

I understand that you are probably busy, but I would appreciate a bit more feedback on how to fix my proposed edit so that it will not be rejected. I assume you are rejecting it based on something I am doing wrong, not based on the nature of the information itself? After all, it is a verifiable fact that Marilyn Manson is a trademark held by Brian Hugh Warner.  It is not very productive for me to keep trying to guess what I could do differently. 

I was under the impression that Wikipedia espoused postmodern conceptions of knowledge acquisition and dissemination. However, I can provide my credentials to you if that would allow me to participate in this community. 

Just let me know if that is necessary. For your reference, here is the edit I am trying to make:

"Marilyn Manson" is more than a stage name. As the musician himself noted in a June 2013 interview with Larry King, "Marilyn Manson... is trademarked, much like Mickey Mouse." According to trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Brian Hugh Warner registered the trademark on February 24, 1998 and renewed the trademark on March 11, 2008 under serial number 75248374. The registration records indicate that Warner's trademark protects his body of work, that is, his "series of musical sound recordings and prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs featuring music." The trademark "does not specify a living individual." This suggests that "Marilyn Manson" may be a character invented by Brian Warner.

JessamynSwan (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)JessamynSwan

Official Government Records and sources currently cited in Wikipedia article aren't legitimate? Hmmm... or is it because the User is new to the community and her edits are being judged more on her lack of previous edits than on their quality?

Interesting thing. I made these Marilyn Manson edits as part of a Graduate Seminar assignment all about crowd sourcing. I'm supposed to explore how it works and report my findings. So far, I have to say, I'm really not impressed. Though I haven't run into the problems of misinformation everyone is worried about, I am getting my legitimate information rejected without a clear basis, with the implications that better standing in the community might make my edits more acceptable. I was told to sign up for an account the first time, and give more and better sources. I did both of these things, yet was rejected again, told to go to the (Marilyn Manson article?) talk page. Well, okay, I thought. Sounds reasonable. So I posted there, but no replies from the user who keeps rejecting me and telling me to visit the talk page.

In addition, as I look at the article I'm trying to edit, I see very questionable sources that have been accepted as legitimate. I also see the same (or similar) sources that I am trying to use to cite my information. Yet my edit keeps getting rejected. That begs the question. What is really the issue here? I am fairly certain my new edit will get rejected. But what will be the basis this time? My information is now more thoroughly documented than most information listed in the article, and doesn't have a whiff of "original research" in it. So what's really happening here? Is there some kind of implicit hierarchy that undergirds wikipedia? Am I being excluded from the wikipedia community because I've chosen too important an article to edit without enough edits under my belt? If so, isn't this contrary to the anti-elitist, post-modern notions of knowledge that Wikipedia was founded on?

Anyway, I have submitted the following edited version without receiving further guidance. Just to be clear, this means that any improvement in the below entry is due to my own guesswork, not from any communication I have received from Govindaharihari, who keeps rejecting my edit without much feedback.

Brian Warner has mentioned on at least two occasions that the name “Marilyn Manson” is actually a trademark, not a stage name. In a 2015 interview at the Cannes Lions Festival, the musician said “I trademarked the name Marilyn Manson in the same way as Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse. It’s not a stage name. It’s not my legal name. Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner.” [37] Manson also mentioned this in a 2013 interview with Larry King.[38] Trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that Brian Hugh Warner registered the first of four trademarks on “Marilyn Manson” on December 20, 1994, protecting "entertainment services; namely, live musical performances of a solo musician and/or musical group; and fan club services." Three subsequent trademarks, issued between 1995 and 1999, give Warner exclusive branding rights to “Marilyn Manson." In both the Larry King and Cannes Lions interviews, Manson reports using these trademark registrations in order to secure a cease and desist order to silence media who were wrongly blaming him for the Columbine High School shooting after one journalist erroneously reported that one of the shooters was wearing a Marilyn Manson T-Shirt. [39]

Govindaharihari previously rejected my edit on the basis of "original research," so I have attempted to make sure there is nothing remotely interpretative about the above information. He/She also rejected the previous edit on the basis of the legitimacy of the sources. However, the Larry King interview I referenced is actually used elsewhere in the extant Marilyn Manson article, except whoever posted that reference used the Manson Wiki. I used Larry King's official YouTube channel. which qualifies as a primary source. I thought a primary source would be preferable to a tertiary source like Manson Wiki. I am certain it would be elsewhere, but clearly I am not versed in all the rules and practices of wikipedia. At any rate, I made sure that both interviews I cited came from Manson Wiki since this appears to be a source that has been accepted as valid in this particular context. As far as the records from the United States Patent and Trademark office, I am unsure how to make those more acceptable. The Untied States Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency required to keep official documents. If Govindaharihari could share with me why there are concerns about the legitimacy of this source, perhaps I can do something more.

If you reject my edits again, please give me detailed feedback on how you would like them fixed or explain to me why it is not relevant to Marilyn Manson's wikipedia page that he has trademarked his name. If you do not have the time or ability to address these concerns, please direct me to someone who can. It is my hope that this is merely a misunderstanding. JessamynSwan (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your kind words about the suggested deletion of Scott Tracy Griffin.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer right granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. KrakatoaKatie 05:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks User:KrakatoaKatie .. -Govindaharihari (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the recipient of....

	A Wiki Tribble Award
	A Wiki tribble has all the endearing traits humans love. They are known to multiply, but unlike the Star Trek tribble the more Wiki tribbles we have, the better. Your kindness and wise advice is appreciated. Atsme📞📧 15:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please accept ...

		The BLP Barnstar
		For stepping in where needed to uphold Wikipedia's BLP policy. Your work is appreciated! Ssscienccce (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks User:Ssscienccce Govindaharihari (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Indo -Aryan people

The Sinhalese are the majority ethnic group of Sri Lanka and if they are minority of all Indo Aryan people then wouldn't Islam be considered a minority as well. As Indo Aryans are predominately Hindu. (121.220.85.4 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC))

Hi thereUser:121.220.85.4, good day to you. Isn't Pakistan included, and there are a lot of Muslims in India as well, anyways, I just thought that out of a really big, hundreds of millions total that 14 million was a minority. Please, I suggest you open a chat on the talkpage and ask the users there, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now that I think of it, I guess the most followed Indian religion amongst Indo Aryan people is Hinduism and so Buddhism would be a minority out of all the Indian religions practised by Indo Aryans and Islam is not an Indian religion so I guess it can be listed as such. Anyway, I guess it can be kept like that. Good day to you too. (121.220.85.4 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you from Indonesia?

Indonesia or not? FDHLWP (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UT

Hi User:FDHLWP I am not from Indonesia. Please add what you like to that article, just link a reference WP:RS is all I was asking, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	--Atsme📞📧 22:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [1]

Rfc

Don't EVER reopen a Rfc after it's been closed unless you opened it yourself EVEN if you think the closure was premature. Engleham (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was a discussion process and premature closure by involved parties was out of standard - I will have a read of wp:rfc and get back to you. thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ow, User:Engleham I see you are blocked for two weeks, wow, I also see your block log is extensive, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AEngleham&type=block makes me feel your aggressive style is causing you lots of problems, good luck and goodbye Govindaharihari (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes

Please don't ever accept pending changes on articles that introduce unsourced personal information to biography articles. The changes you approved at Digangana Suryavanshi were the same edits that the article was protected to prevent.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi -User:Ponyo, but the link verified it, ??? didn't it? in the supporting link and the utube video she confirms it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digangana_Suryavanshi&diff=703474206&oldid=703473517 - I will check again , but she at least supports the day of birth in the utube video - it appeared to me , on investigation to have a degree of verified truth in the addition, so I accepted it. Please excuse me if my investigations were misguided, but I did do and always do a primary investigation prior to accepting. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The link provided does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", especially for material that has been disputed as is the case with the date of birth (see also WP:DOB). The Terms and Conditions for Daily Bhaskar make it clear that it does not meet the criteria; in their own words "Daily.bhaskar.com does not control the content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content." and "Daily.bhaskar.com makes no submission about the suitability, reliability, availability, timeliness, and accuracy of the information, products, services and related graphics contained within "The Site and the Service" for any purpose."--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ow yes I see, I will watch out for that in future, many thanks User:Ponyo. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: adding content / Saul Alvarez

[2] – There is no need for a reference for a formatting change that applies to WP only. Having the lineal title follow The Ring is a format that will be part of the new boxing MOS; specifically the record table section:

• "List titles in the order that they were won; do not sort them by alphabetical or sanctioning body 'importance."
• "Exceptions include The Ring and lineal titles; they should be listed after any sanctioning bodies, with lineal last."

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the unlinked was the ip addie previous to yours, this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sa%C3%BAl_%C3%81lvarez&diff=704041374&oldid=703810671 I thought that was you also and it did change the detail without a link, anyways, those articles are pretty messy, lots of unverified content and such, no worries Govindaharihari (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'opinionated user'

'opinionated user' is a personal remark - address the content issue, or else stop editing wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.5.49 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

if you go around calling people wankers and all your other rude angry comments you will appear opinionated. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Sir/Madam,

So I've viewed your input to the page, where you said; "Common name is usual in opening.".

I would remind you that the article opening says; Clint Eastwood (born Clinton Eastwood, Jr.; May 31, 1930)...

To say "born Clinton Eastwood, Jr." would mean that he changed his name from Clinton to Clint.

I think everyone can agree that Clint is his common name, but Clinton is his full name - "born Clinton Eastwood, Jr." means otherwise.

So, my edits were to remove confusion of suggesting that he changed his name (and there is no reference to say that he did anyway).

With your permission, I will re-edit the page.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Frey's Fray (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Frey's Fray Not giving permission for that - please leave comments on the article talkpage Talk:Clint Eastwood and time for discussion - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and question

	Thanks and question
	Hello Govindaharihari! Thank you for your message. I have one question: Why my updates or small contributions were deleted? If this is not the correct way to send you a message, please accept my apologies and also let me know the correct way. Thank you again. Abielsneyder Abielsneyder (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• HiAbielsneyder. Thanks for the lovely thanks and query. I felt the term was not widely used or well known to be in the heading like that and suggested you open a discussion on the chat page in my edit summary comment. I have opened a section on the talkpage, please see and pass your own opinion there atTalk:Americans#Usonians - best. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto

Please explain your reversion on the talk page, as I have explained mine. – Smyth\^talk 12:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

hi, Smyth I commented on the talkpage. Its all over the press and not being disputed anywhere. I don't care either way but the facts are screaming - remove them if you want, they will be replaced soon enough Govindaharihari (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To me this is obviously a case of something being temporarily "verifiable but not true", but no doubt that will change within a couple of days. – Smyth\^talk 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok - its true to death imo - do as you will , regards Govindaharihari (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So sorry if the "streams" got "crossed" there...

I suspect you and I were both trying to revert vandalism on Kid Cudi at the same time and, like the thing that "would be bad" in the original Ghostbusters, we "crossed the streams" of our reversions. My deepest apologies. Twinkle generated a template before I was able to see that you were a fine established editor and I am mortified. All the best to you for a pleasant weekend! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And, again, I just got your message, and I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Juliet, for your comments and all your work to improve the wikipedia Govindaharihari (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan Religion

Hello Govindaharihari,

It is mention in this article that Sadiq Khan is a Sunni Muslim.

Source: In These Times The Bittersweetness of Tidying Up , 27 February 2016, retrieved 7 May 2016

Is it bad to be a Sunni Muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.144.83 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted materials

Hi,

Please do not accept copyright-violating images like this edit [3]. Thank you.--Mona778 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2016

• Hi there User:Mona778 - the picture is with a commons licence and is still hosted on wikipedia commons, see here - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not true! You accepted the copyvio deleted file. [4]. Mona778 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I can see, it was just a name change issue, exact same picture with the same license and the same flickr source and attribution to the photographer, the photograph is actually good to use and is still in the article just under a different name. As a reviewer I clicked on the commons link and it was hosted on commons and had a commons compatible license attached and a flickr link and I accepted it and as I understand that is plenty of due diligence for a review, that it was later deleted as a copyright violation is not a reflection on my review of the edit. WP:REVIEWER see, Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, distinguish what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies Anyways, great its been deleted and thanks for your work. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck in all that comes your way in the future.--Mona778 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Citations need to have the correct title. This citation template shows the wrong title. Check for yourself.

Tarek Fatah (13 November 2013). "Everything you ever wanted to know about having sex with your slaves, but were too afraid to ask…". tarekfatah.com.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see now, thanks User:Toddy1 - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to my re-ordering the citations? The advantage of putting that citation first is that it allows the subject of the article to explain his point of view.

Given that "halal" means permitted, I cannot see any logic to having the sentence in two halves. The first half says that it is permitted and gives 3 citations. The second half carries the same meaning as the first half - it just uses an Arabic word for "permitted". The second half is marked "citation needed" - we could give it the same citations as the first half. But it seems pointless repetition. Do you have any objection to my removing the second half?- Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok,sounds like a plan, no objections. User:Toddy1 thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

over one and a half years and over 5000 contributions

This editor is a
Yeoman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

The Yeoman lv 3, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 15 months and completion of 5,000 edits

cool, enjoyed it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marilyn Manson

A new user has opened discussion on that talk page of your removal of content she added. She also posted at the top of this talk page rather than at the bottom where it belongs. I was concerned that you might not have noticed that editor's questions. Thanks Edison (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Edison, you were right, I had not found the comments at the top. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Momemtum articles

Please note that there are two near identical articles. One of which you were involved in trying to stop repeat vandalism. Please review. Isthisuseful (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:68.98.245.20

Hello. Regarding your message at User talk:68.98.245.20, the edit looks like a good one to me, unless I'm missing something. I restored it. Station1 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Shadow Cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn

added links pointing to Tom Watson, Andy McDonald, Dave Anderson, Clive Lewis, Sarah Champion and John Healey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Tennis rankings

Hello. Please do not post tennis rankings ahead of time on Wikipedia. You always have to wait for the official ATP update on Monday. Generally, on November 5, you cannot write that something happened on November 7 (even if it is projected to happen), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can mention Andy will become No. 1 on Monday, but you cannot write that this is his current ranking, because it is not true. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a link - number one - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What disruptive editing?

I didn't vandalise or "disrupt" US elections page, I simply stated my opinions and that too just once. Stating opinions that too especially once isn't disruptive. Get your facts straight first before informing me. 117.241.117.197 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I did read the guidelines as you suggested, but stating an opinion especially just once isn't disruptive. In fact no definition in the world will call it disruptive? Why? Because it was never was nor I ever tried to disrupt anything. Do not falsely accuse others of "disruption", false accusations are clearly against rules. 117.241.117.197 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Replies are on your talkpage - User_talk:117.241.117.197 - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said it's an opinion. It might seem negative to you per BLP, ehich by the way still doesn't state it is a disruption, only it isn't allowed. What I said might not be allowed, but you are accusing me of "disruption" whixh is far serious. I never disrupted ir vandalised anything. All I did was give my opinion. Your accusations of disruption are false by every way it is looked. Please apologise for falsely accusing me. 117.241.117.197 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• No - your post on that talkpage was disruptive and violated core wikipedia policies - go away and stop posting here Govindaharihari (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Govindaharihari. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)