Nepal Kirat

Welcome

Hello, Nepal Kirat, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Mr. Stradivarius Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Nepal Buddha

Hello Nepal Kirat! About the Nepal buddha article that you wrote - I have redirected it to Gautama Buddha. Sorry to be so rough with your first contributions, but it looked like your article was duplicating our existing article on Buddha, which is something we generally discourage on Wikipedia. Feel free to edit the Gautama Buddha article, and there might even be some content that you could merge with it from Nepal buddha (but again, be careful about unnecessary duplication). You can find the text you added here. Let me know if you have any questions, and best of luck with your editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Tenzing Norgay. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SudoGhost 13:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shakya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SudoGhost 03:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Welcome. I want to make sure you understand that you are welcome to come and improve Wikipedia; you just need to follow the rules and respect the opinions of others. We all have viewpoints but as editors we need to accept that our viewpoints and the viewpoints of others deserve equal handling and present the reader with a neutral point of view. You seem to be off to a rocky start that way and it may be a good idea to spend a litle time reading the policy pages mentioned in the welcome template above and making an intentional effort to include a differing viewpoint into the next edits you make. Again, welcome from a fellow editor. Celestra (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Celestra, thank you for the warm welcome. With respect to 'neutrality', this should not serve as an excuse to perpetuate misleading, incredible and/or out-dated information. I am disappointed that Wikipedia, insofar as the write-up on the historical Buddha is concerned, is clearly being hijacked by a small group with vested interests, pushing 'neutral point-of-view' as a cloak to pursue their own agenda. No offence intended, just a frank assessment of the current situation. Thanks and regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

No offense taken; I appreciate the candor. In the same spirit, you should understand that I see the situation as almost a mirror image of that. An enthuastic new editor with strongly held beliefs is trying to replace apparently neutral text with content which agrees with that viewpoint. I have no interest in these articles and am just sharing my perception as a disinterested bystander. I expect many editors would share my perception.

Since you want to displace a large number of reliable sources, it might be reasonable for you to present a large number of independent sources which agree on this. Even better if they discuss the recent discovery which makes the earlier viewpoints invalid, or if they are newer articles by the same experts which were previously used as sources. UNESCO, being a political body, is not a particularly good source for establishing the existence of consensus. Even if a UNESCO source said there was an overwhelming consensus, which they do not in this case, I would be dubious since declaring consensus has become a popular tool today in politically-controlled "science". Far better to demonstrate the consensus with an abundance of sources. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense, I meant :) As mentioned earlier, the UNESCO has made clear their scientific position about the historical Buddha being born in 623 BC, in the Himalayas (Lumbini, Nepal). I would not get into an argument over the possibility of 'politics' in the UNESCO scientific panel, as accused by you; since I am not on the panel. But, what I do know is, the scientific panel reviews a range of data that include findings from internationally peer-reviewed, published, archaeological (field) work. A spade is a spade, irrespective of putative 'politics' levelled by you against the UNESCO experts. Last but not least, the pseudo 'consensus' in this particular Wikipedia page appears to be constituted from the skewed opinions of a monopoly; whose impartiality is clearly in doubt. Accordingly, I shall not be commenting any further on this sorry state-of-affairs until circumstances change. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nepal Buddha concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nepal Buddha, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Nepal Buddha

Hello Nepal Kirat. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Nepal Buddha.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nepal Buddha}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)