User talk:Dr2Rao/Archives/2020/June

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Dr2Rao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
• Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr2Rao, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dr2Rao! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--regentspark (comment) 15:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OK-Dr2Rao (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read through our policies before editing, and self-revert anything that doesn't conform to policy. If you are unable to do that, you are likely to see your editing privileges revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr2Rao! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Edit protect request, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning

It is clear that you are here trying to promote an agenda and have now started canvassing for that. Any further disruption and your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry, I happened to find another Wikipedian off line who explained what canvassing is and will not repeat it.-Dr2Rao (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

AE notification

I have initated a discussion about your recent edits at WP:AE. The thread is here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Religious conversions in Pakistan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Religious conversions in Pakistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversions in Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

I am sorry but the religious conversions in Pakistan page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Please Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. I am really sorry, but attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. When you asked me about posting Islamophobic content on 28 August 2020, I did explain that you risk being banned or blocked if you write something racist or Islamophobic that relates to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I am only posting facts with references for each sentence. Wikipedia has many articles that are attack pages and I don't see why we should avoid another (all Pakistan related articles are attack pieces if you have observed).—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayodhya dispute

The Sunni Waqf Board involved in the Ayodhya dispute was the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board. That is a state body. It was not the national Central Wakf Council, so wikilinking to the latter sends the reader to the wrong article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, can you start a Wikipedia article titled, "Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf (or Waqf) Board" with the references cited in the Dhannipur article? It should say that the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf Board successfully got an allottment of 5 acres of land to build a mosque as a replacement for the demolished Babri Masjid. Then we can link to that article instead of to the Central Wakf Council.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have created this: Uttar Pradesh State Sunni Waqf Board.—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The official name is, "U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf", so should we rename the article?—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

U.P. is an abbreviation. It needs to be spelled out for clarity in the article name and at the start of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, so should we rename the article as, "Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf"?—Dr2Rao (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think so. The current name is long enough. If anything, the "State" can be removed. Scholarly sources just call it "Sunni Waqf Board". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Regarding this edit, I recommend reading Paki (slur), and then never using the word again.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Even the word "Pakistani" is a little bit suspect, and is best avoided.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, then how do we refer to them?—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

My advice is to read newspapers published in Pakistan - try The Express Tribune. There are lots of subtleties - take this article - "Pakistan" is used as an adjective meaning of Pakistan - but when speaking in the voice of a foreigner (Chinese in this case), the article uses "Pakistani" to mean exactly the same thing. But this article uses "Pakistani" all the time! Military writing often uses "Pak" as an adjective. Trying to avoid unknowingly giving offence is sometimes very difficult.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, you may be blocked from editing. The content you are adding is not supported by the sources you are using. Please be more careful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you removed 2 sentences, there was a temple there before based on evidence by the Archaeological Survey of India and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site and 500 acres of land be given to construct a mosque at an alternative site. Both are mentioned lower down in the article. It is not "OR". The references are cited in the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. These edits added the claim that the Mughals demolished a temple to build a mosque. No reliable sources support that claim; certainly, nothing you added does so. That's original research, and adding content of that sort is likely to get you sanctioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ayodhya dispute, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I have now cited sources for the same.—Dr2Rao (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:edit warring is not the way. Please open a discussion at the relevant talk page, and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Dr2Rao: You both need to use the talk page of the article on the Ayodhya dispute. You are both repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that the other person disagrees. You both made two reverts in twelve hours. You are both expected to collaborate, and to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing each other' edits when there is a disagreement.

If only you would both make an effort to discuss your differences, you would probably see that there is more common ground than you imagine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If you try to sway me with emotive arguments based upon the idea that Muslims kill at the drop of the hate I will report you for racism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I have posted on Wikipedia till now amounts to racism.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You might think that, as I said continue and we will see what ANI says, you may now take this as a last warning, stop the Islamophobic rhetoric.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please take more care with citations to sources. Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources say. In this edit to the article on the Babri Masjid you changed "India" to "the Indian subcontinent". But the cited source says "nationwide".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Another set of problem edits was this set 16:45 26 August and 17:03 26 August - 16:25 27 August. You changed the lead of the article - part of this included adding two citations - one made no mention of a connection between Dhannipur and Babri Masjid or the supreme court ruling - the other mentioned a supreme court ruling but gave no clear guidance which one. You also added the words "reconstruction of the mosque in this edit; that would mean reconstruction of the 16th/17th century mosque that was demolished; where does that come from? Also if you are going to cite newspaper articles, please could you give the date of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the citation template for the more useful of the two sources you attempted to add to the article, and raised the issue of whether it can be used in the article at Talk:Babri Masjid#Dhannipur. If you read what I wrote you will see that the article would need other information (supported by citations) to enable the reader to see whether the citation was relevant to Babri Masjid.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy WP:COMMONNAME. This says that: "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics: this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". The common name is Faizabad district for the district and Faizabad division for the division. We had a discussion about the category name for the division a few months ago - you can read it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 20#Category:Faizabad division. So please do not change Faizabad district to Ayodhya district in Wikipedia articles as you did at Dhannipur. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

When you add newspaper or magazine articles as sources, please could you make sure that you use template {{cite news and not {{cite web. If there is a Wikipedia article on the news source, please add a link to the article on news source - a good place for that link is work=; that is much better than giving a website name because it helps the reader to have confidence in the source being cited. If possible give the first and last names of the author(s) of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, does Wikipedia disallow anything that seems Islamophobic even with cited sources? If so, please give me a link to read up about the rule. Thanks!—Dr2Rao (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a notification of discretionary sanctions on your talk page. It has some links. One of the things it means is that you risk being banned or blocked if you write something racist or Islamophobic that relates to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The notification serves as a warning.

A woman once wrote an article for a Ukrainian newspaper that defamed a Ukrainian businessman. The newspaper website is accessible in England, so the businessman took them to court in England. The argument that she was a Ukrainian citizen writing in Ukraine for a Ukrainian newspaper was no defence. English language Wikipedia can be read in many countries; and many countries have laws against inflammatory website content. So Wikipedia has to be careful - if what you write is "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value", it will probably be revdelled.

If you want to make an Islamophobic comment, the best thing to do is to tell God and nobody else.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Chambailpankaj in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. As it appears that they can read English, it's hard to understand why you didn't use English to communicate, in fact it's easy to think that you hoped others wouldn't understand it. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will go and edit the articles, the language of which I am fluent in.-Dr2Rao (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No, don't talk to other editors except in English. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - what I meant was I will edit the articles that are in my native language rather than the articles on the English Wikipedia (I have already started).-Dr2Rao (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Many apologies, but I think that would be a very good idea. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)