Jump to content

User talk:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed deletion of Mannan Wani

Notice

The article Mannan Wani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a WP:BLP delete Per WP:BASIC no in depth coverage. Only Claim to fame is joining a terrorist org WP:SINGLEEVENT. and WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DBigXray 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi DTM, as you replied in the thread below, If you do agree that this page can be deleted, kindly blank the article and use WP:G7. --DBigXray 12:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Orphaned non-free image File:CID West Bengal Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CID West Bengal Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!



New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IDEA: An online Wikipedia course on Coursera or EdX

Just have to find out if this idea is even possible and whom to ask... hmmm...

Hi. I have been editing Wikipedia for a short while now (2000+ edits) but still am a newbie with lots to learn. I understand there are various pages explaining Wikipedia guidelines and there are other more experienced editors who help clear things out when there is a confusion related to how Wikipedia works...
But wouldn't it be nice if there was a more interactive way and coordinated way of conveying information to new editors who want to stay here for a long time?
Now getting to the points the idea is this - Can there be an online course for Wikipedia like the ones on Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) or edX (https://www.edx.org/). A proper course with videos and quizzes and interactive elements and the history of Wikipedia and basic help navigating wikipedia for future editors, how the largest volunteer community in the world works, how things are resolved on controversial topics, so many things can be covered sequentially...
I am not sure though how i can get a second opinion on this idea or where to ask it and push it forward to people who can actually execute this if this idea is good enough. Would mailing info-en@wikimedia.org be a good idea, or does the Wikipedia Foundation already have this idea, the idea is already out there or is it just sufficient to leave this idea here? Thank you. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi DTM, there is WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, which is always mentioned in Welcome messages. But I doubt if anybody takes it. We used to have a user that used to post a nice template for it. He is now gone, and I don't know how to produce it. You might try doing the adventure and seeing if you find anything new in there.
There is WP:The Missing Manual, which guides you through the various tidbits step by step. But again I don't know if anybody takes the time to go through it. People generally think they know what to do, and try to look things up when they get stuck. We are always learning, as we go along, via the feedback we get from the others. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with KT above. DTM regarding your Question where to propose such Ideas for more opinions, post it on WP:VILLAGEPUMP --DBigXray 19:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, @Kautilya3: @DBigXray: I am seeing this now. Thank you for this information. This is awesome! Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi DiplomatTesterMan! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:15, Sunday, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

A word of advice

Hey DiplomatTesterMan, This is a word of advice from someone who has been editing for some time and has a modest 50ish stubs created on Wikipedia. IMO, quite a few articles you have created so far do not really merit as stand-alone articles and would have been better off as adding more content to the original article. This issue, I think, stems from a lack of perception which leads to more work then necessary (not just for you but also editors involved in the general area of interest). Here I present a few examples, like Operation Calm Down, Operation Sadbhavana (Goodwill), Operation All Out (before the rename) all which should have started as added content to Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Another example is Indian Army Para (Special Forces) selection which should have been Para (Special Forces). Then there are other articles like People for Animals Uttarakhand which should just have been People for Animals or Mosque Me Too which could have been a part of Me Too movement. These are in addition to some articles which have been outright deleted like BJPs Verbal Attacks on Mamata Banerjee, Kashi to Kashmir, Dhiraj Kumar. This is not a warning or a call for admin action but a recommendation for a course correction or an intervention of sorts. I think a good approach for you would be to take a voluntary WP:AFC route before you create articles. This is will ensure that there is some form of sanity check for your articles before they are created. The benefit you have here is you can keep content around in your draft space and if you feel that multiple drafts can be combined then it works out. Currently, we have to go through lengthy page merge discussions which is a significant time sink for everyone. I am pinging @Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, and DBigXray:, some editors who have nominated some of your work or have worked on the merge, to chime in. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, You should just delete the articles which you think shouldn't exist or nominate them for deletion. There are too many articles on Wikipedia like this. You waste time like this. And though you seem to use "nice" language, using terms like "some form of sanity" is plain disgusting in my opinion. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, You have the most edits on Op All Out, why in the world did you add so many edits if the page was wrong in the first place and I shouldnt have created it. And compared to the total number of mainspace pages i have created, my error rate is not too bad. You are the one of the first persons on Wikipedia who undid my edits and told me to take it onto the talk pages... make up your mind. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and are you Adamgerber80 an army chap by any chance? You seem to insist every operation on the operation all out page is part of operation all out. I'm really confused with those edits of yours and your reasoning never was solid over there on the talk page. You seem to love expanding that list. I am actually giving up trying to put forward that point and just work around it.
Maybe the best way for you to work around me is take a more hard stance, directly nominate the pages for deletion, undo or revert the edits instead of discussing them etc just tell an admin that i need to be blocked for a day or two.... I will understand clearly that I'm the one making all the mistakes and once I am blocked for a day or two or a week, i am sure i will be even more doubly triply quadruply careful when making changes to pages on wiki, especially where you are involved. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm out of breath now :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi DTM, Kindly do not take suggestions in a negative way or WP:BATTLE. We all are entitled to our opinions, which may or may not match with the mainstream. What we have to remember is that Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia and there are certain basic policies that has to be remembered. Personally I feel no harm in you using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation for new articles. if you have any concerns in using that, please let me know. --DBigXray 10:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In place of pointing others fault, you need to address the above concerns about your article creations. It was also concerning when enough users had told you that why your articles don't deserve to be standalone, yet you still won't agree to deletion or merge of the articles you have created. I have also seen enough of your articles that are not just non-notable but they are also written against the spirit of WP:NPOV. I do think that AFC is the nice way to move ahead for you. ML talk 11:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Block me then @My Lord: since i wont learn right? I will of course blame others, that how this game works right, pointing out each others faults... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: I used AFC for two articles so far (as far as i recall) and didn't like how the articles passed the checking feature... and they were allowed on Wikipedia through them. I personally had thought at least one of the articles i created with AFC shouldn't be on wikipedia Anushriya Gulati, another one which i helped with sounded like clear promotion D Roopa but i added to it nevertheless since i felt the article could stay here, but then if i apply every single wiki guideline to it, of course i can add criteria to say it should go. Also, Mannan Wani, you have put a deletion tag, did i complain, no... I think your reasons for asking for the article to be removed are clear and i haven't been able to find ways to improve the page either.... so that article will probably be deleted (QUESTION: I'm just curious though, it was reviewed by an admin nevertheless, shouldn't the page not be reviewed if it doesnt follow wiki guidelines). I personally was surprised initially when Wikipedia was allowing some of these pages to stay. Here this is not me testing wikipedia to see who is more clever and all but more of a practical learning process too for me about the wikipedia community, the largest volunteer community in the world, and making the learning process more interactive... and I think i just need a break now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
And sorry for getting irritated, i just hate it when the word "sanity" comes into play, even as a common phrase or slip of tongue. Of course i am trying to sort out my mistakes isn't that obvious since i myself delete pages i have created and i have put merge tags on them myself?? I opposed one merge by MyLord because i felt the consensus was not reached and other issues with the page had not been addressed... so i complained yes, but i left the page as it was. I also immediately followed it up with the page move on the Operation All Out page... Address this question please @My Lord: Do the incidents in the Operation All Out page, do the sources citing them categorically state that they are part of Operation All Out... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my reply in good spirit. First of all, Please do not associate WP:AFC as only for new editors. AFC is a good place to start an article if you are not sure if the subject is notable or not. as other volunteers at AFC will provide their useful second (or multiple) opinion feedback on notability and will save you some efforts getting wasted if the article is not notable and gets deleted. As you know nothing or no process in the world is perfect. but some are best fit for certain situations. regarding your Question of review, yes the article was reviewed by another editor, Mainly because I forgot to mark the article as reviewed. And the reviewing editor had seen the WP:PROD tag, which informed him that the article is already reviewed and I had decided that the article was not notable enough to have its own article. Had he disagreed with my opinion, he could have removed the PROD tag, but I assume he agreed with my opinion for PROD tag and hence marked it as patrolled, since there is nothing more for him to do as the article is already marked for deletion. Now since you agree that the subject is not notable as an author, you can use WP:G7 and mark the article for deletion. --DBigXray 12:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense... will put the tag for WP:G7 DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan I apologize if you felt offense by my choice of words but they were meant in the normal way [1]. Anyways, this was just a piece of advice and not a warning. No one wants to delete your pages or block you (at least I don't intend to pursue that). The goal of this was to help you be more productive to the Wikipedia community. I have explained my view of that page to you on the talk page and in short we needed an umbrella term for these operations. We now have one.
Lastly, just a side note, my background has no bearing to my contributions on Wikipedia. All information about me on my Wikipedia user profile is accurate and I have no COI when I edit Wikipedia. I wish to keep my identity a secret (for reasons of my own) and would appreciate if you don't ask me personal questions or theorize about my background. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Adamgerber80: Sanity check definition is a good one... "The act of checking that something does not contain elementary mistakes or impossibilities, or is not based on invalid assumptions"... happy editing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Umar Khalid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JNU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 Bhima Koregaon violence

Hi DTM, any interest in developing this page? It is a current topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for the message. Made a few changes. Still needs more work of course. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sports in Jammu and Kashmir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

multiple Undo vs revert

Hi DTM I saw this Not sure why you decided to do 4 UNDOs instead of 1 twinkle revert. Critics will call that efforts to increase WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, Being your well wisher I would recommend using Twinkle revert next time. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 11:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Hi. Thanks for mentioning this. I still haven't figured out how to revert or undo multiple edits in one go. I have never done that. Yes, I have reverted edits one at a time, and I have undone edits one at a time... but never multiple ones at the same time. I have twinkle on, but I don't seem to see a revert option with it or maybe I am just overlooking it. (This has nothing to do with edit count since that doesn't interest me too much, but yes, why give a point to the critics.) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
true, FYI, From whatever little i know about you from our few interaction, I am sure you don't care about Editcounts, but like I said, this is something you can be accused of, so lets do it in an expected way. check out Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback. I hope it will save some precious seconds that you can utilize in contributing elsewhere. as always feel free to ask me or WP:HELPDESK if you need any such advice, sometimes even experienced editors like me need to post on helpdesk or WP:VP, regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I will go through this the page - Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback. Thanks again for the help and the reminder about the helpdesk. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
cool, for now you can just check the exact section I linked above that has a screenshot as well showing the rollback links, even I have not gone through the full doc, but it would be good to check it out to know all the features it offers. Twinkle is quite user friendly and saves lot of time while maintaining articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I specifically read the exact section you linked for now. Understood how to use the rollback feature now and the three different rollback features mentioned. I have noticed the rollback link many times but never used it since I was unsure what exactly would happen and never understood why it was different from the revert option, after reading this it makes much more sense. Yes, Twinkle provides a lot of other features... one at a time. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, good call in not testing out new things on pages other than the Sandbox. :D . the WP:ROLLBACK's only benefit is it is faster, and you dont get to add an edit summary, if you use ROLLBACK on anything other than "obvious" vandalism, that right can be taken. It is used mostly to mass revert edits by a blocked vandal or sock account. whereas, Twinkle rollback allows us to add an edit summary to explain why we are reverting. Twinkle rollback can be safely used in many other cases (other than obvious vandalism). --DBigXrayᗙ 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive

your page has reached 150Kb already, consider archiving (preferably by a bot. See WP:Archive or let me know if you need help, its just a 2 line code that u have to add on top of your page. I will be glad to help you do it. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Added the code. Hopefully I've done it correctly. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed, it looks good. 30 month 90 day old threads will be archived, in archive pages named as 1, 2, 3 and so on (based on current settings. if you want to use pages that use name of the year e.g. 2018 1, 2018 2, 2019 1, 2020 1, and so on you can use format=Y %%i . anyway its your choice, both formats are correct. (I prefer the year format). you have 24 hrs time to make any changes as the bot will come after 24 hrs of setting up. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, the 2160 was for hours... so "sections with dates that are older than 90 days (2,160 hours) will be archived". I think you typed the months part wrong in your reply. Well, I will see how this bot works and if things get too messy then I am sure I can change it to the date format. Maybe since this is my first real year of editing on Wikipedia, the year format seems a little less appealing.... lets see :D thanks again.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I stand corrected, it was a typo. sure. you can always rename later by moving the page. and there is no need to create the archive pages, the bot creates it on its own. I see you have created one , so bot has one less work to do. :D . good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

First merge successfully completed

 A glass of Thandai for you
Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar.
Good work in learning the Text Merge procedure. Here is something to recharge you after your first merge, cheers
Thank you.

DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Requesting comment on talk pages for requested move

I see that you are an active indian user and so am requesting a comment on the following talk pages on the requested moves.
Talk:Modi Ministry
Talk:List of committees of the Indian government
Cheers --Politicoindian (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lavanya Rajamani has been accepted

Lavanya Rajamani, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Service Award

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

Based on your contributions so far, Keep it up. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Shaurya Doval has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shaurya Doval. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shaurya Doval has been accepted

Shaurya Doval, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DiplomatTesterMan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alok Bansal (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Frayae was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, DiplomatTesterMan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: Hi, I don't think this draft can be sorted out just now (for a few months at least). Should I shift it to my user space or is it ok to leave it in AFC? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: The user who reviewed my AFC above has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. What should I do with my AFC? Resubmit it for review and try again or move it to userspace for now? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, thanks for pinging me. The reasons for blocking of this user is unrelated to your draft. So don't worry about the block. I see the reviewing user has mentioned this reason for declining as lack of notability. so lets take it from where the other reviewer left.
Can you make a comment here along with the sources (to verify) that explains why this subject deserves his own WP:BLP. (see WP:NSOLDIER, WP:NPROF WP:NAUTHOR If you can make a convincing argument based on these polices, some one else can approve the draft based on your argument. There is no hurry, a declined draft can still remain there at the present location for you and others to work until 6 months. If after six months the draft is still not fit for move to the main space only then it will be deleted. Hope I have clarified. please feel free to ask further question if you need more clarification. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if you intentionally submitted that draft for a review or it was just a wrong usage of the Template:AFC submission . In my opinion, if you feel the draft is not ready for submission then you should use {{subst:AFC draft}} while submitting instead of {{subst:submit}} because the latter means that the author feels the draft is now complete and ready for mainspace. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Thank you for the detailed reply above. Sorry for the late reply. I took my time to respond here as I was trying to figure out how to respond :D So after agreeing with the reason of the original AFC checker that the article doesn't have enough "secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and that his blocking has nothing to do with the AFC as you clarified, I also considered the points you mentioned - WP:NSOLDIER, WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR. Getting the current article to agree with any of these guidelines would be pushing it. There are mentions of him being in command of two different Indian Navy warships, but I can't seem to find out any sources which say which warships those were. So I can't justify notability even according to WP:NSOLDIER : Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher... since I don't know if it was one of the bigger warships or not.
Therefore I will just leave it in draft for now, and if no good sources arise after a period of time (which I doubt) I will delete the article myself. I had initially not realised that most of the sources I was adding were all primary sources in a way and had rushed the AFC submission, which yes, was intentional at the time. Thanks again for the reply. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • DiplomatTesterMan I am glad that you took time to understand and read the links as well. I knew that you might not be aware of these policies, nobody is born with these knowledge, even I had to learn them at some point of time. Your plan for future action makes sense to me. I leave it at your good judgement (which is fast evolving as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to delete it at a later point of time. Cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you help out Saquibkhan

I will refrain from engaging him as he has taken a strong dislike to me and is inclined to continue to attack me, out of, kind of, self motivation. Hope he calms down and realizes that this is a collaborative site and everyone is trying to improve articles. --Jaydayal (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jaydayal: Yup, no problem. Let's all stay focused on just trying to improve Wikipedia with a certain sense of WP:CIVIL. We should edit Wikipedia and feel good ourselves as editors for doing what we do rather than ending up grumpy or dissatisfied, it's a thankless job anyway most of the time. Thanks for the comment and mentioning this :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Related to previous discussion - A word of advice. Thanks!

Hi @Adamgerber80:. I was just thinking about the discussion "A word of advice" we had some time back. I have realised that I need to be much more careful with my new articles in mainspace and the subsequent creation:deletion ratio. As per the detailed section "Pages I've created, now deleted, or merged" on my userpage where I analyse this -

Total 7 deletions out of the 50 articles I have created in mainspace as on 23 October 2018. (Excluding redirects) That's a 14% deletion rate so far.

And if I include merges, the ratio goes up a little, (in which I mention you too for the merge part just as reminder, I hope you don't mind). So yes, I understand better now how that if I want to apply for things such as new page reviewer, the number of deleted articles will cause problems. Just now it's okayish.... but have to be careful. Bold and careful. Thanks. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: I think this will improve with time and experience. I would recommend to take the WP:AFC route when you are in doubt. Or ping someone on the task-force if it is an article which comes under the task-forces' purview. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your submission to The Signpost

Just saw your new contribution, and thanks for that! I can't guarantee we will have enough hands on deck for the upcoming issue to review it properly (we are just over a day from the writing deadline now), but I will try to keep things moving forward. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I had an independent reader (not in The Signpost's Newsroom) take a look and their feedback was that it could use an essay-style introduction. Actually the format right now is tweaked from what you submitted; I reordered a paragraph before the first bulleted list, but I think I agree that something succinct basically saying "here is what you will read about in this essay" would help. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: Thank you for acknowledging the contribution so fast. I just found the Signpost newsroom and yes, only one day left till the writing deadline. So, it's ok if the article doesn't reach this issue, maybe the next one? The suggestion from the independent reader is a good one, and I will add the essay style intro. The reordering you have done makes sense. Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Your piece is approved for publication and has been added to the issue 12 table of contents. Congratulations! There might be a bit more copyediting prior to publication on or about December 2. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Indian military history task force created

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that the Indian military history working group which was started in June 2016, as a part of the Military History WikiProject's incubator, now graduated into a full-fledged task force. You're receiving this message because you've shown you support previously to the working group, if you wish to be a part of present task force, kindly sign-up on the members page. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@KCVelaga: But my name is already in the page you have linked. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for signing up. I actually sent the message to all the previous members. KCVelaga (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: Ah yes. I got that from the "Dear all" :) I was just going through your profile and work on Wikipedia, awesome consistency and work! An inspiration for newbies like me.
Related to the Indian military task force: I wanted to know if it is possible to make the task force, more, how would you say, seem as if something is happening on the project page. It doesn't have to be drastic stuff of course, but even small things. Because just now even without the task force it seems that editors keep editing pages that fall under this WikiProject wonderfully in whatever capacity they can. Unless there is some sort of coordination or if the editors involved keep interacting with the Wikiproject directly, I don't really see the task force coming being as fruitful as compared to everyone just editing articles without the task force. Like I have been attempting to create and edit articles that come under this WikiProject without actually referring it. Yes, if some sort of coordination can be managed, then yes, that would be awesome. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for your kind words and sharing your thoughts (very much thought-provoking). I would like to answer—it will be a big reply, unfortunately I am very sleepy now. So my brain won't allow to do detailed stuff. I'll give you an elaborate reply tomorrow. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: Of course, no problem. Take your time. Cheers DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A good thing to do to get off the ground, would be to rate any unrated articles, and cross check some of the problematic ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. Users keep doing their regular editing irrespective whether a project or a task-force exists or not, this is an agreeable fact. But such collaborations help in coordination, mainly to discuss issues about a certain topic area. The Indian task-force, as it is relatively the youngest of all, there is a lot of work to do and there are a lot of opportunities as well. Some these include building quarterly newsletters, editing campaigns, content improvement campaigns etc. I'll be busy until the end of next month, due to my exams. So I will not be able to spare much time on this. Let us plan something significant after that. However, you're free to explore and pursue opportunities anytime. KCVelaga (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: Hope the exams went well! :D Sorry for my even more delayed response. I am replying exactly one month later. Yes, collaborations such as the task force help in coordination as you said above. You had written - "Let us plan something significant after that.". Anything in mind if you are free now? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Hello! Thanks for the ping. Actually I've a couple of things in mind. But let us finish the first before move onto the second one, as it also requires more time investment. The first is conducting a tagging campaign for the new task force. I am not sure if all the articles from South-Asian task force have been checked and tagged for "Indian". Pinging Kges1901 and Adamgerber80 for status, if it hasn't been completely done, we can organise one tag and assess kind of campaign. KCVelaga (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: So the assessment you are talking about is related to the box titled Indian military history task force assessment statistics right?
Currently -
  • Total articles = 1,423
  • Total lists = 39
  • Other pages = 364
  • ω = 7,437 Ω = 5.087
So say there is this redirect page Operation goodwill which comes under the "Other pages" section in the assessment list. This has no talk page and I guess it falls under this task force... so either the redirect is deleted or the talk page is created with the task force tag... This talk page isn't also tagged - Talk:Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir. So you are talking about things like these? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: I am not sure about the tagging but I have covered some article and this an arduous task given the number of articles under this task-force. Maybe we can tap into the other members of the task-force and see if we can get this started. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If you send out messages to other TF members, a tagging drive shouldn't be hard to organize. Tagging is done by adding |Indian=y to the WikiProject Military History template on each talk page, for reference. Kges1901 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: So yes, we can organise a tagging drive. If you are interested to do this, I'll be happy to help. I would first suggest to create a section on the taskforce's talk page and a start discussion with the members about the duration, dates and objectives. Pinging AshLin who previously organised a Tag & Assess drive for WP:IN. Best, KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

football team

Draft:Jammu and Kashmir football team are you willing to work on this ? take a few days and then let me know. the article is completely unsourced and content is clearly hoax. a candidate for deletion in my opinion. Good catch though. if you arent willing to work on this, please nominate for deletion. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I totally forgot about this page!! I will nominate it for deletion. There is hardly anything online about this. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: The page is back! It was created again just 3 days after I deleted it. :D :D Jammu and Kashmir football team... This time I tried looking a bit harder for citations and have found a few. They are all local sources off course. Greater Kashmir and Daily Excelsior are notable enough for JK articles, and since this has to do with sports, nothing controversial, they are good for this article. Will try giving it more shape. That is unless someone else decides to keep it deleted? Actually the entire list of articles on Santosh Trophy teams for each state are problematic in certain ways, but I won't go into that. They're ok staying.  DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
While I still believe this is a non (or barely) notable team but at least this is factual article. Good work in finding the sources. Yes let it be.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.



New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Better India has been accepted

The Better India, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SamHolt6 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work writing Lavanya Rajamani signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, this is obviously a good work, but I've a few suggestions at this point. Here they follow:
  • Using autofill for references can be easy, but I don't suggest completely relying on it. For example, the website for a reference was mentioned as "www.cprindia.org", but it should be the website's name, but not the website itself. So it is better to keep it as "Centre for Policy Research". Same is the case with.
  • For ref 6, none of the template parameters were filled expect for the URL. Please do mention the website, and since it is a PDF, |format=PDF should be added.
  • Infobox; it is good enough to mention the degrees with the field of study if required, but not with the universities or college. They can be listed for the "alma matter" field. "Occupation" field, denotes the occupation but not a position in an organisation. Something like "Policy analyst" "Policy researcher" can be good.
  • Lead doesn't generally require citations unless a new fact is presented. See WP:LEADCITE.
I've corrected a few, please make other corrections based on this. Also consider nominating for WP:DYK when you create a new article or expanded 5x. Best, KCVelaga (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@KCVelaga: Thanks for taking the time to write down these points, I will keep them in mind for future article too. I will check if there are others changes still left on the basis of this in this article. Thanks again! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Pleasure! KCVelaga (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Your Signpost article is fantastic!

I have had so many similar experiences in editing, your article really pulled things together for me. I may have a lot of edits, but I am still a newbie in the sense of all the policies and etiquette that exists here. Please, please continue to write for the signpost. I have been hoping for a long time that we will get a contributor from India. We have so much content regarding India and Indian culture. No long term commitment is required to be an editor/contributor for the Signpost. You can even have a go at creating/collaborating on a Humour article. I am glad to know you and thank you for your work. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Thank you and I am glad you liked the article! :) I really do want to continue writing for the signpost every now and then and I hope this article is an indication that I am not only "saying" I will but I actually "will". As for the humour section; humour doesn't come to me easy (the humour in this article worked out somehow I guess :D), but having a go at helping out with the humour article sounds interesting though. I have read "Dangerous carrots" and "After the apocalypse...", they're really nice pieces in their own way, one requiring keeping a keen eye for such talk on Wikipedia and the other a keen eye for such devious vegetables :D . DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • DTM, I was pleasantly surprised to see my name featuring in the Signpost, Thanks a lot for the kind honours. The Article was indeed very well written and I guess every editor can relate to it in someway, because we all start somewhere and learn along the way. Hope to see more of DTM in the future signposts --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Thank you. Glad there was an element of surprise :D and I will surely try to write more in Signpost, need to pace myself for the long haul! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC
@Kautilya3: Thank you Kautilya! Your usage of the word "career" here sounds so heavy... I guess that's following my own mention of needing to "pace myself for the long haul" in the previous reply... I take it back! One day at a time, one day at a time... this sounds much nicer :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Initially I was thinking whether I should inform the Wikipedia users I am mentioning in the article before the final date just to confirm if they have any issues with there name there, including yours, but then I just left the informing part... glad no one has any problem. (Positive mentions not associated with anything controversial... and article turned out decent too, so a happy ending). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh,don't worry. You enjoy the freedom of the Press when you write for the Signpost. Besides, you were only saying nice things about us. Helping us new editors find the ropes is something I wish I could do more of, if only I had the time and patience... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Signpost Barnstar
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your signpost article (and felt the need to award you this Barnstar). Happy editing! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Glad you enjoyed the article :) Even gladder with Barnstar! Thanks. :D :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Archive_2&oldid=1212131779"