User talk:Tayi Arajakate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 1#Legislative Assembly constituency names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 1#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daraunda (Vidhan Sabha constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kavita Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at AFD

I would like to bring your attention, for your inputs here 1, here 2 and here 3.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All India Students' Association logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:All India Students' Association logo.png. 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) 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wire (India): SLAPP Claims

Hi, you restored the claim made that the web publication, The Wire (India), has been subject to SLAPP. However, I believe you're confusing defamation lawsuits with SLAPP suits. That said, multiple lawsuits filed were directly on their journalists and not publications. Therefore, it makes sense to mention the same in their editors' pages. Your Bar and Bench source implies SLAPP in an interrogative manner, title being "Another SLAPP in the face?...". While Reliance filed and is currently fighting cases against over two dozen such media-houses that indulged in spreading misinformation regarding ADAG's Rafale Deal. Crux of the matter is that none of any WP:RS sources specify the suits against The Wire as SLAPP, therefore the claim made on its article is completely baseless and should be removed. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Defamation suits can be used as SLAPP suits. The India Legal article which I added afterwards specifically alludes to that. It really isn't for us to judge whether it is misinformation or not, as claimed by Reliance where sources independent of either party are not referring to it as such. The lawsuits are also both against the publication as well as specific journalists and editors per the WP:RS. If you have contention that BarandBench is not one, you should take that to RfC. For the matter, all the references for that line are implying SLAPP with the former explicitly stating it. In any case, it might be better to have this discussion on the talk page of the article for greater input. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I will add details in a new section

You have again undone my edits even when there is clear data that she belives and professes that attacks on the parliament were done by the Indian state. The investigative article was not from a loon either but from a respectable journalist of the Hindu. I think 4 sources should be enough to prove a claim and therefore it doesn't remain contentious at all. You are trying to muzzle my voice which isn't right. I am going to add a new section with details. You can add a different viewpoint but censorship is clearly a heinous act IMHO.

VediKboy Firstly, thank you for listening to me in part at least. Before inserting anything can be controversial especially on a WP:BLP article please discuss it beforehand on the article's talk page or at least discuss it if someone is contesting it. I'm not trying to muzzle your voice or something, as I already stated that would be the last revert I'm going to do but you are not following policy. I would recommend that you self-revert your last edit until a consensus is reached preferable in the article's talk page though. Wikipedia is not there for editors to express their opinions and have counterpoints to them, it's purpose is to be a encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Attributed opinions which are stated in reliable sources can be added in it but special care needs to be taken in biographical articles of living people.

That said, having read the 4 sources, I've to state a few things. In the Hindu article (which is an opinion editorial and not a piece of investigative journalism) by Praveen Swami, what he calls far fetched is the viewpoint of Arundhati Roy as stated by him is that there was no evidence against Afzal Guru and that he was a random person being scapegoated in the case of the Parliament attack. This can be confirmed in her opinion editorial in the Hindu. Praveen Swami's article makes no mention of Roy accusing the Indian state of committing a false flag or any of her viewpoints on any other terrorist attack. So it is factually incorrect to state that "According to the investigate journalist Praveen swami, Arundhati has long been claiming that various attacks done inside India are not by the caught suspects but by the Indian state." In the Outlook India article, she does give the possibility of it being a false flag by the Indian state as a suggestion, in both the Hindu and Outlook she stresses that Afzal Guru was being scrapegoated which can be expanded upon in the section for 2001 Parliament attack. It can also be stated separately that she had suggested the attack to be a false flag with attribution to the Outlook article. The current line in place right is a synthesis which isn't confirmed by any of the sources. The single incidence does not show a pattern of categorising various terrorist attacks as being false flags which is a caricature.

Coming to the guardian article, which is categorised as a news story, stating that "Even today we don't really know who the terrorists that attacked the Indian parliament were and who they worked for" is not the same as stating that Indian state conducted a false flag operation, if anything it is contradictory to that assertion. She also mentions the Batla House encounter as an example of extrajudicial killing and not as a false flag operation of the 2008 Delhi bombings. The quote - "This .. country with a shadowy history of suspicious terror attacks, murky investigations, and fake 'encounters'" doesn't substantiate the initial point other than a highly ambiguous "suspicious terror attack", in the very article she specifically attributes the Lashkar-e-Taiba as the perpetrators of the 26/11 attack. The claim that she is a "truther" and "conspiracy theorist" as a general description is per se original research and not substantiated, all Praveen Swami does says is she is being vain and her arguement is far fetched in a specific case. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition if you feel that your insertion to an article is incomplete and it is being contested before it is complete, I would recommend using sandbox to complete it and then inserting it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Again you are trying to cover up the facts. I dont know why. Maybe, it is due to the way you look at the world. The article by investigative journalist praveen swami who rarely gets things wrong clearn says in one of the paragraphs that

"Ms Roy insisted Guru had been “plucked out of thin air” and transplanted into the centre of the ‘conspiracy’ as its kingpin. She had no doubt the investigation and trial threw up evidence of state “complicity, collusion, involvement”.

This clearly emphatically shows her belief that 2001 attacks were state sponsered.

This is clear even from the 2006 article. Read it and tell me what you confer

These questions, examined cumulatively, point to something far more serious than incompetence. The words that come to mind are Complicity, Collusion, Involvement. There's no need for us to feign shock, or shrink from thinking these thoughts and saying them out loud. Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies like this to further their own ends. (Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany, 1933; or 'Operation Gladio' in which European intelligence agencies 'created' acts of terrorism, especially in Italy, in order to discredit militant groups like the Red Brigade.)

As there is ample evidence with her own admission. I am going to revert the undos. This will not stop. I have tried to reason with you but you are hell-bent on suppressing dissenting voices. I hope you see with clarity. Thank you Your Friend

VediKboy I did miss that state complicity was mentioned in the Hindu article by Praveen Swami on my first reading. But no it does not emphatically show her belief that 2001 attack was state sponsored. In the same article, you would find the following quote "Ms Roy is right on one key issue: we are still far from knowing the full truth of 13/12." The same is also re-iterated in her Guardian article as her concluding the case of the 2001 attack as "Even today we don't really know who the terrorists that attacked the Indian parliament were and who they worked for." In addition I have to once again state that Praveen Swami's article is an opinion piece and not a "investigative journalism" piece which would be marked as a news item, as one can clearly see it being marked as "Debate Comment" under the "Opinion" section. The Hindu itself is treating both their articles in the same light, as in a debate between two people. The Outlook piece is also a book extract (of her book) which highlights the section of her suggestion that it had state involvement, all in she isn't explicitly stating that it is the only possible explanation just that "evidence points in this direction as a possible explanation" in her opinion.

Not to mention even disregarding this, it is still original research to adjoint the debate around the 2001 attack with "various other attacks". The equating and caricaturisation of her stance to be applicable to an ambiguous "various" and under a section "conspiracy theories", still remains purely original research and is uncited. To put it this way, unless and until reliable sources explicitly state she indulges in conspiracy theories where she definitively implicates the Indian state of conducting false flags in multiple terrorist attack cases, your lines can not be added and are a WP:BLP violation. In this case, it isn't even clearly shown that it is her concluding stance on the 2001 attack, let alone in other terrorist attacks. I did preserve the points which were faithful to the cited sources in the section you created without the synthesis and original research in my last edit. I'm not trying to "suppress dissenting voices", this isn't a place to show dissent towards particular people and that isn't done by misrepresentation of material in the sources. That said, I'm not going to edit that page anymore or revert your inaccurate version for the time being but I would recommend self reverting till this is settled.

I would also recommend not to indulge in WP:BATTLE and cast aspersions on the intent or actions of other editors. And you should sign your comments with "~~~~" at the end. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are deliberately not trying to read what she is saying in her 2006 introduction or you are trying to fool me. Please read it again. She is clearly emphatically saying that 2001 attacks show state complicity like the attacks before Hitler took over. How else do you interpret it? What is there to interpret? You have tried to ban me from writing the absolute truth. This is not original research but an article for 2006 which cited many times by other people. Wiki members like you want to hide her nefarious views because she make these conspiracy theories to demean India around the world. I hope you change you mind after read the paragraph again. The article from swami also doesn't mention anywhere that her claim of 2001 attacks was true in fact he debunks it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VediKboy (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I could have believed if she said she had doubts but she is clearly saying that there is state complicity. She has no doubts about it. Read the paragraph again. I know you wont and keep grabbing on to minor wording. She had to accept the 2008 attacks as there was a video of the perpetrators doing the attack. She has not accepted any other attacks as stated by the government which is fine too but saying that 2001 attack was state-sponsored is a conspiracy theory that should be mentioned in her wiki page. We find even small details on western stars linked in their wiki pages. Why should Arundhati Roy get a special pass? Because she demeans Indians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VediKboy (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

VediKboy I have read all the 4 sources twice not just one paragraph from them. In the Hindu article, she states that the the case of 2001 is unsolved and that case throws up evidence of state complicity (in her opinion). That isn't the same thing as claiming "she definitively believes that the government conducted a false flag operation". The Outlook article is a book extract of hers and the paragraph you took out is her trying to introduce readers to the concept of national administration being capable of conducting false flags with examples. Her claim that there is evidence of state conspiracy is mentioned under the section of 2001 attack. I had also added a line concerning her allegations against Indian administration in the 2001 attack and Batla house incident under advocacy. Praveen Swami criticises her claim as being made out of cherrypicked evidence in his opinion piece, which is also mentioned in the 2001 attack section. It is okay if you think Swami is right in the debate but wikipedia isn't a place to express the personal opinion of editors, one of the fundamental principles of wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). None of the sources that you have provided call claims by her, a "conspiracy theory", a loaded word to begin with, which is why it was original research. It was also original research to add the uncited "various other attacks" alongside the claim on the 2001 attack. And stop throwing random accusations at other editors of having nefarious agendas or whatever else, they all qualify as personal attacks and are not conductive for discussion.

Wikipedia runs on discussions between editors and not the personal opinions of individuals, you don't enforce your opinions by avoiding other people and their arguments, and forcing through your edits even if your edit were correct (which in this case is not). That is the reason you were blocked from the page and I didn't ask for anything to be done to you, I reported you because you were being disruptive. Read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to understand what I mean, the entire article that is. Lastly, read the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; the second paragraph for instance.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to edit this for the last time since you don't care for what is written and keep adding the 2013 Hindu article which has rare to no value in this case. The only two articles that matter here are the 2006 introduction by her and 2013 one by Praveen swami. Now you again claim that she is not saying that it was government-sponsored but she is casting doubts. This is blatantly false. I only cast apprehensions because I see blatant AISA supporters like (Redacted) (currently banned) [Name redacted by me — also, not banned, but was driven out. Remains an editor in good standing on the project. El_C 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)] recommending some people. Anyways coming back to the topic. Let me baby feed you.

Let's first talk about what is a conspiracy theory. Right?

According to our own wiki page

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.

So if someone is arguing for a far fetched idea. Even in the introduction of an article/book/podcast. He/she is a conspiracy theorist. Right?

Let's focus on the lines below from the 2006 article

"The words that come to mind are Complicity, Collusion, Involvement. There's no need for us to feign shock, or shrink from thinking these thoughts and saying them out loud. Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies like this to further their own ends. (Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany, 1933"

Why is she asking people not to be shocked? Because people are generally averse to these conspiratorial ideas.

Why people shrink or saying aloud these thoughts? Again these are blatant conspiratorial views so people shrink.

"Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies like this"

Like what? Making of mango juice? or doing false flag operations?

She answers that

"Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany, 1933 or 'Operation Gladio' in which European intelligence agencies 'created' acts of terrorism, especially in Italy, in order to discredit militant groups like the Red Brigade."

What is she pointing to? Peeling to bananas?

She was answering a question regarding "why we don't know the names of the 5 terrorists"

Later on, she details how this conspiracy could have been orchestrated by the "dreaded, torture-prone" Indian police/STF etc.

The article is eye-opening about her views on the attacks.

No questions remain to be answered but some just want to defend here and silence anyone who points to those links. --VediKboy (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

VediKboy What AISA supporter? Your insinuations against me get weirder every time. Anyways what you did right here is what is called original research. The fact is none of the sources call her a conspiracy theorist or even the claim on the parliament attack a conspiracy theory. Praveen Swami in his opinion piece calls it far fetched and is critical of her opinion. You have used that criticism combined with your assessment of a paragraph of her book (present in the extract of the Outlook article) in isolation of any other source to derive a very specific conclusion not stated in either or any source that she is "peddling conspiracy theories". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is also a BLP violation, even when mentioned on talk pages. You need attribution from reliable sources whenever you, basically, cast aspersions on living persons. As for casting aspersions against Wikipedia editors, past or present... I only cast apprehensions because I see [etc.] No, just no. This is your final warning about that, VediKboy. Please tread lightly from now on. El_C 17:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to know that. Now I see I can't do anything regarding blatant discrimination that happened with me. Over and out :) --VediKboy (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

[B]latant discrimination that happened with me — that ANI report is still open, if you have evidence to add to that effect, you are free to submit it. El_C 18:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tq

Can we Work Together KumarVenati (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@KumarVenati: Of course, the main problem with those assembly pages is that most of them lack sources for the makeup of the current assembly which needs to be added and only that should be reflected on the pages, any changes need to be cited as well because otherwise its sometimes hard to distinguish which edit is accurate and which isn't. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Please post your authentication here apart from book mentioning in a single line that RSS was banned by britishers in india there is no data no ground of claiming so, Neither book state it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmedfalah7711: Please stop edit warring on the page, if you have concerns bring them up on the talk page instead of removing reliably cited sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The removed part clearly had reference to Gandhi Killers to RSS and RSS being banned by vice prime minister for not recognizing Indian flag and constitution since it did not subscribe to fundamentalist Hindu ideas. With reference, the ideas should be included in the wiki entry. Please let me know issues within these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoddha1 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoddha1, both the opposition to the Indian flag and the former membership of Godse are already covered in the sections of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh § Opposition to the National Flag of India and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh § Second ban and acquittal respectively. There is no need to repeat the same thing, also please note that these need to be stated in a dispassionate voice, with nuance and in an encyclopedic language. There is per se no issue with the references you have used with perhaps the exception of South India Citizen's Web which appears to be user generated and mostly is a collection of material from other sources (some reliable while others not) which should be ideally directly linked to. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for comments. Even though the issue of flag and Godse's membership was mentioned but the very proof that he was always a member was not mentioned explicitly. Its now well proven . The facts that he was made a scapegoat while Savarkar got scot free by refusing to acknowledge that he was part of conspiracy. Its hottest topic around the assassination of Gandhi and banning RSS. Mentioning it here was just finding right place for these facts. Since I am new to language modifications as you suggested so you are definitely right there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoddha1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoddha1, having gone through the references in the article and the ones you provided here, you seem to be right that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article so I've edited that section to better illustrate the membership status. Though, one more things I should mention is that you should avoid marking your edits as minor when making new additions. See Help:Minor edit § What to mark as minor changes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 10:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} DRN Volunteer18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding can the subject journalist stand on her own. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Anjana Om Kashyap".The discussion is about the topic WP:BLP.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

Add answers to the DRN

Hi Tayi,

I have added some questions for you to answer at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fourth_statements_by_editors. Please follow the instructions listed for how to answer these.

Thank you, Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

New Section

Hi, Looks like you have removed my edits from the leftist news agency wiki page. I had given references from news agencies like rediff and media bias fact check. It seems like you accept only those sources which are convenient to you. In this process, I have also realized that Wiki has a bias against the rightist, and hence it blocks more of such news sources. Now if you continue to remove my edit, what action should I take against you? Otherwise please accept that Wiki is also not open to all thoughts, It is just a handle of leftist ecosystem in the world. Thanks, Ravi Saraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravysaraf: Media Bias/Fact Check is a self-published source and is considered generally unreliable (per WP:MBFC), FactHunt is a source that was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network (see WP:IFCN), Rediff is not a news agency and is wholely depended on syndicating articles from news agencies; in this case an opinion piece on the Business Standard which can not be used as statements of fact (see WP:NEWSORG). More important if you truly intend to edit constructively, review WP:OR considering much of your addition wasn't supported by even these provided sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arajakate - So essentially a coterie who would decide what to black list and brand others as per their convenience or inconvenience! If all these agencies are covering up mistakes and biases of the ATL news (while blacklist channels like opindia), then of course they are partners in crimes of propagation of leftist news! Thank god I discovered this alliance so that at least I can warn people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravysaraf: Discussions for blacklisting do not have any exclusionary participation. And none of the sources you used are blacklisted, otherwise you won't be able to save them on the mainspace. OpIndia is and for good reason, if you are one of its readers I'd advise you take its word with a bucket of salt, there are many right leaning publications which are reliable but OpIndia is not one of them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, the ATL news should be take with entire ocean worth of salty water! If we are not able to put a line on the ATL news wiki that it is left leaning when it is proven left leaning agency, then that itself is sufficient to prove the bias of people like you and others who hide behind the burkha of liberalism, freedom of speech, etc. but actual just fake when practicing those values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravysaraf: You need citations from reliable secondary sources to include the lines you desire, original research is explicitly not allowed (see WP:OR). Wikipedia isn't a place to express your free speech and expoud your personal conceptions, this isn't a forum or a social media site. Personal attacks are also not allowed because they do not help in building an encylopedia but from your conduct I don't think you're here with that intention anyways. Lastly, I don't subscribe to Liberalism but that's irrelevant here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My intentions are very clear at least to me! I am against the winners or influential ones writing the history. What ATL news does is a personal attack. So they do need eye opening. This is not first time that the history (Every news is history getting recorded) is allowed to be written by a few selected. Overall Indian history was always ill-treated by Europeans and then these leftist ideological terrorism. Yes, I understand Wikipedia was envisioned or sold as an encyclopedia. But then when it based on and biased by particular views, it is not encyclopedia - at best it will be an encyclopedia of leftist view of current world politics. You want reliable secondary sources and reliability would be also decided by you! Very nice.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravysaraf: Wikipedia isn't a place for righting great wrongs or an ideological battleground of some sort. Neither do I decide what's reliable or not, you've been shown the relevant policies and if you won't even bother to engage with them then I can't help you. Anyways most of this sounds like the same old OpIndia's conspiracy theory rhetoric so am not gonna bother anymore, I'd like you to not continue this rambling on my talk page unless you have something productive to say. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Good that we are discussion and waking up to the left leaning Wiki conspiracy! https://www.facebook.com/VivekRanjanAgnihotriTV/videos/722533455194732/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Scroll.in

In my recent edit you have asked me to give proper references. I had referred to the letter by FCI itself, is that not reliable enough? Please point me to the guideline (specifically) which says I cannot use a letter by a government authority as a reference or is not reliable. If you had missed that then please undo the changes, or edit it as you think is correct rather than deleting it completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalebip (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, sources must be independent of the issue. Neither PIB or FCI are independent in this case. Additionally as a general rule, the words of governments aren't inherently authoritative, they are in fact likely to be unreliable in many cases because of political considerations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are accusing Indian govt. agency of providing wrong information? I think this is not correct. FCI has provided a signed letter in the reference I have provided. You are saying that if any third party news agency which is possibly be funded by political parties are independent. I am reverting the post as I do not see anywhere in the guidelines which say that the statement by the Indian Government agency is not a reliable source. I you feel so, I would request you to please modify it where needed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalebip (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Any government can provide wrong information especially when they have vested interests for doing so, there is nothing extraordinary about it. If any news agency has partisan affiliation, their partisaniship can be established and treated as biased, questionable or otherwise. Wikipedia doesn't keep a specific tab on every possible source which is or can be used on the site. WP:RS is one of the foundational guidelines. Even if we were to assume that the government source is reliable, it can not be used in this case as it is not an independent source. FCI or PIB have a very obvious lack of independence or dis-interest in a matter regarding irregularities concerning the FCI. They are also sourced from twitter accounts and violate WP:TWITTER. If the issue is notable enough and there is merit to your addition then reliable sources independent of either Government agencies or Scroll.in would provide coverage to it, I personally at least could not find such coverage. The only other source you have provided is Logical Indian which is an user-generated site which again are as a general rule, unreliable (see WP:UGC). Your contribution itself also have numerous other issues concerning undue weightage, violation of MOS and in part the material added is unsupported by even the sources provided. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem here? Do you even understand what are you saying? Scroll.in article itself was based on the FCI report, so if you are questioning the legitimacy of FCI then you are welcome to add a few lines about the legitimacy article published by the agency. Did you even read the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalebip (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I provided you the guidelines and how they apply as you asked. If you want me to simplify it, then this is a dispute or miscommunication between the FCI and Scroll.in, which has been only covered by the two orgs. Neither of them can be used as sources of facts in this particular case since they are disputing parties (a.k.a not independent of the topic). Since no reliable third party has covered this topic, it's too inconsequential to be added let alone be added to the lead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your spi

Well spotted. And here I thought he was acting in good faith. Wasted a lot of people's time. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a bit obvious to spot tbh, they did seem nice at first. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize my for disruptive editing on Page:Abhisar Sharma. --Parlebourbon (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zee Media Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zee Media Logo.png. 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) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zee Entertainment Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zee Entertainment Logo.png. 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) 02:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New York City Police Department on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Hi @Tayi Arajakate: I need a clarification from you. Both Nationalist Congress Party and Samajwadi Party uses Elections.in as a primary source for both ideology and political position in infobox. Although Samajwadi Party uses some good source for political position. Now can we rely "Elections.in" as a reliable source for political position or ideology. While other article uses "Daily News and Analysis" as a source. Before removing I need some clarification from you. My view is Elections.in is a unreliable source. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Amrita62, both are certainly unreliable. Election.in is a self publishing source which denies any responsibility for the accuracy of its own publishing. Daily News and Analysis while technically being a newsorg has a poor reputation of fact checking and questionable independence, and hence should not be used especially on political issues. Most of the Indian political party articles beyond BJP and INC need a lot of work in general. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tayi Arajakate

Thank you for creating Zee Biskope.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. Of course it needs content and sourcing. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000:, Thank you but I myself am unsure if the subject is notable enough to have its own article. I created it as a redirect to Zee TV. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It also isn't a BLP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tayi Arajakate

Hi I am new user in wikipedia joined just last week , not having idea about the protocol's about wikipedia. I just created Rupali Chakankar article by watching some videos but now it showing message about deletion.please can you help for what editing should be required to prevent it from getting delete. Thank you --Saurabh2040 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Saurabh2040, please go through the general notability guidelines before creating an article. To prevent deletion, you should be able to demonstrate that the subject of an article fulfills this criteria or any of the criteria of notability guidelines for biographies. The article itself does not necessarily need to be edited do so, although you should attempt to improve it and more importantly add references which prove that it meets the mentioned criteria(s). Your article was put up for the articles for deletion (AfD) process by someone who thought the Rupali Chakankar does not meet the guidelines but I do think she meets at least the basic requirements so I've done my part to highlight it, other editors will comment on the AfD which usually takes about 1-3 weeks before any action. The article itself has a lot of problems however, for example it does not follow the manual of style. In any case, I provided you with the welcome template so that you are aware of the basics, it has everything necessary that a new user should get acquainted with. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

1964 split

Hi. Thanks for your inputs on the CPI article talkpage. It brings me to think, perhaps we'd need a separate article on the split itself, to create more consistency between CPI and CPI(M) articles. A few point;

• The popular media version is that the split was provoked by the 1962 war. This isn't true, the split originates in the aftermath of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union regarding the role of Marxism-Leninism in the communist movement.
• That said, the 1962 war accentuates the split. Especially that fact that the CPI right-wing utilized state repression to settles scores against the CPI left-wing cemented the division.
• By the time CPI and CPI(M) hold their respective party congresses in 1964 the split is completed.

--Soman (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Soman, Sorry for the late reply, was a bit busy shifting. But yes, an article about the split itself is probably in order. I'll look into it once I get a bit more time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks. I've started a draft at Draft:1964 split in the Communist Party of India by copy-pasting the "Formation" passage from the CPI(M) article. --Soman (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Soman, hey so firstly thank you for initiating this project. I briefly read though the whole write-up as it stood around this time, and reformatted the sections. Hopefully that didn't disrupt anything, you can revert it back if it you want and don't care if the end result has no resemblance to this form. Anyways one concern I'd bring forward is that per the overview the domestic factors and relations with the INC form at the least a significant factor in the division but the timeline as of now barely gives any information on that front. I've a bunch of other question and I'll need to dig into references for that, I'll bring up other stuff in some time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot. I'm slowly converting the factoid bullet-points into text passages, but additional sources and detail is of interest. --Soman (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, the issue on the relation with INC isn't well developed, and most of all, the material isn't particularly accessible for a wider audience. The difficulty is that whilst people usually want to reduce things to easy binary categories (pro-Congress vs. anti-Congress or pro-China vs. pro-India) this event has a lot more nuances. Let's see how the language can be developed. --Soman (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. A question, in case you could help me double-check, in https://www.jstor.org/stable/3023926 there is a mention of Yogendra Sharma being elected to the CPI Central Committee at Madurai Congress 1953. But https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039359278900030 mentions a Yoginder Sharma being a CPI Secretariat member in 1962. This is at the same individual, correct? Then in the 1980s there is a mention of a 'Joginder Sharma' in CPI in Bihar, is this still the same person or was there any other leader with similar name? --Soman (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Soman, there seems to be a Joginder Sharma in Punjab CPI(M) who I'm positive is a different person. From what I can tell at least, Yoginder Sharma and Yogendra Sharma seem to the same person. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

In 2019 Indian general election in Kerala There Have Been About Christians,Muslims It's Like Promoting Some One

UPA Won Due To Anti-Modi Sentiments

Please Take Some Action Sir Ayan 2019 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Delhi riots 2020

Understood that you have rights to comment but contributors like us who does once in a while are being issued gag order by full protection on article and now on Talk page too. I am sorry to say but it is a fact that entire article has been a dent on Wikipedia for being written in a biased voice.

May I know if there is a way or again truth need to suffer against people in power. I did some homework and found same set of users are thoroughly distorting facts across articles and they appears to be against right wing ideology. It is fine to have personal opinion but we can't let it reflect it in our article. There was a user DBigXRay and he did a big damage to image of Wikipedia and it was such that finally Jimmy Wales has to mention about him and then he dissapeared and his account was closed. Please help how to counter this rationally and in a civilised manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are actually interested in helping building an encyclopedia then you are free to create an account (accounts aren't generally necessary but its preferable imo), learn the basic processes/guidelines and you're free to contribute that is if you want to. There are a whole list of helpful links for this in the welcome message that's present on your talk page.

From what I have seen that went down here a few months back, DBigXray was targetted and doxxed for editing politically sensitive articles and an harassment campaign was launched against him which led to him retiring from editing, I guess they succeeded in getting what they wanted.

The Delhi riot page itself is extremely contested and subject to extensive violations of wiki policies due to off wiki canvassing (e.g: certain twitteratis complaining that they don't like it leading to a whole bunch of their supporters trying to edit the page, etc), and hence protected against edits from IPs and new accounts, if such things were allowed anyone would be able to influence the nature of content from outside and promote anything. I expect the talk page at least to become unprotected soon and as long as people maintain civility, they can discuss things there first, achieve a consensus and implement their desired changes. Note that achieving consensus (a well reasoned general agreement between a supermajority of participants) is important for most changes especially on that page. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jan Gan Man Yatra concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jan Gan Man Yatra, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. 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. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ignorant Reversion

You should restore my edit or correct it instead of deleting.

https://www.timesnownews.com/amp/india/article/bengaluru-riots-muslim-man-from-meerut-offers-rs-51-lakh-for-killing-karnataka-mla-ra-srinivasmurthys-nephew/636722 Mr IndianCotton (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And If you think Paraphrasing is crime just repeat this headline "Muslim leader announces Rs 51 lakh bounty on Karnataka MLA RA Srinivasmurthy's nephew"

https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/city/bengaluru/bengaluru-riots-muslim-leader-announces-rs-51-lakh-bounty-on-karnataka-mla-ra-srinivasmurthys-nephew/amp_videoshow/77537213.cms? Mr IndianCotton (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr IndianCotton, It isn't my job to look for citations for additions you make. The addition which is only tangentially related would also constitute violations of the policy on biographies of living people by both publicising the bounty and casting an allegation on a non notable person. Moreover, now that I see you're topic banned from IPA so you should really not be editing on that page or even discussing it anywhere on wiki. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, the user has been topic banned from contributing to and discussing IPA related articles. If he continues to engage you, you can take him to the relevant noticeboard. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, Please check the page before my edit, 1. Now check the source used, it's from Hindu. Now find me the content there that justify this line: Two of the Congress's state legislators B. Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan and Rizwan Arshad arrived at the spot and tried reasoning with the protesters but to no avail; Khan was reportedly injured in a melee.. You can't, because it's not there.

You have also reinstated the same content with the same source by this edit. I will give you the same advise that you gave me: assume good faith. And an apology in my talk page would be nice. Thank you - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, Quoting from the cited article of The Hindu for that line. It isn't my fault that you're unable to locate it.

As the mob went rioting, several attempts were made to calm the mob and reason with the protesters. Two Congress MLAs B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan and Rizwan Arshad rushed to the spot and tried reasoning with the rioters to no avail. Mr. Khan was also injured in the melee.

Secondly, the following edit summary that you left is an example of casting aspersions which is inappropriate in either circumstance.

Also quit strange that these guys name are included, but not MLA whose house burned down. Hmm... I wonder why?

Lastly, providing a warning template on your talk page isn't an assumption of bad faith. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are using an older version of The Hindu article. It got updated, it no longer contain the names. Hope you will correct your mistake. Thank you - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, you seem to be correct about the sourcing so sorry for that. I will see if there is any other reference for that, otherwise I'll remove it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

List of current members of the Rajya Sabha

Sir Please Revert This Page Ayan 2019 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've almost no clue what went on there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also please don't call me "sir". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about latest Defamation attempt on Shaheen Bagh

Hello Tayi Arajakate, Please read the sources before deletion. Thanks for your cooperation. Its Reliable and Respected Sources THE QUINT and IndianExpress among others. Its important to keep the page updated and clarify against any false defamation allegation. My edits are as below

On August 17th, 2020, the Aam Aadmi Party alleged that the protests at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh against the CAA were “scripted and strategised” by the Bharatiya Janata Party for political gains in the Delhi 2020 election . Rajiv.dhy (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Rajiv.dhy

Here is my full edit that I think meets WP:RS standards and is an important update for this page Brainchild of the BJP allegation On August 17th, 2020, the Aam Aadmi Party alleged that the protests at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh against the CAA were “scripted and strategised” by the Bharatiya Janata Party for political gains in the Delhi 2020 election . The AAP allegation came a day after Shahzad Ali and several other Muslim activists who were part of the Shaheen Bagh protests joined the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and Shahzad Ali said that "the BJP is not an enemy of Muslims" . However, according to the analyis by Aditya Menon of The Quint, the allegation made by Saurabh Bhardwaj of AAP is unsubstantiated, as there is no proof that Shaheen Bagh protests were a BJP’s brainchild. Rajiv.dhy (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Rajiv.dhy

Rajiv.dhy, The addition doesn't seem very relevant to the protest itself, it's an allegation against the Bharatiya Janata Party not a defamation attempt against the protest itself. Political parties and politicians make allegations against each other all the time as well, Saurabh Bharadwaj made a singular statement which wouldn't constitute enough weight for inclusion in either case unless at least more forcefully asserted and more extensively covered. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, Thanks for your insightful analysis, and I agree with most of it. But, I would like to bring few issues in this regard: Saurabh Bharadwaj, is the official spokesperson of AAP, and he said this in a press conference, which was widely covered in both electronic and print media. eg, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Quint, Scroll to name a few, so it seems to have been widely covered.Also, the charge is as much on BJP as on the Shaheen Bagh protest, as the allegation is that " the protests at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh against the CAA were “scripted and strategised” by the BJP", further saying that these were not democratic protests.. I think if some reader sees these stories in media, it would be better that Wikipedia clarifies this issue in a neutral and positive manner by presenting the clarification by The Quint on this issue. But, I agree and that we should wait and if this issue gets more widely covered, then we can include it on this page. Thanks again for your timely analysis Rajiv.dhy (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Rajiv.dhy

I agree, if this gets more widely covered and if it is reasserted or re-invoked by the AAP after this, it might merit inclusion. That said political parties at times do sponsor protests too and there's nothing undemocratic about it but I do get the point that since the protest was against the policies of the BJP government to begin with which might make it seems like some kind of falsification. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I agree with your points. And, I see that this issue has been covered again by WIRE.in, Economic Times, New Indian Express, NDTV, among several others, so I think it needs a brief neutral mention with clarifications such as from Quint & Wire to have the issue covered on Wiki; and keeping this Wiki page updated for readers. Therefore, I would like to add it on the page, and request you to edit or add relevant clarifications, rather than delete the entire section. Thanks again for your kind cooperation. Rajiv.dhy (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Rajiv.dhy

https://thewire.in/video/watch-anti-caa-protester-joins-bjp-shaheen-bagh-women-respond https://thewire.in/politics/bjp-anti-caa-protests-shahzad-ali-shaheen-bagh https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/aug/17/people-of-minority-community-from-shaheen-bagh-join-bjp-2184408.html https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/delhis-shaheen-bagh-unit-joins-bjp-arvind-kejriwals-party-alleges-plot-2280846 https://feminisminindia.com/2020/08/19/shaheen-bagh-bjp-politics/ Rajiv.dhy (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Rajiv.dhy

Rajiv.dhy, I still wouldn't say it merits inclusion. This is just the repetition of the same news in different publications and from the appearance of it is only tangentially related to the protests. For instance, most of them frame it as people from the Shaheen Bagh locality joining the Bharatiya Janata Party, of which some claim that they took part in the protests which is disputed by others. The Aam Aadmi Party's spokesman provides a relatively absurd statement after the news of the new inductees. Unless if there are more developments, for the time being I'd oppose any attempts at including it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, On Wikipedia we can agree to disagree on minor details, but larger issue should not be put under the carpet. Also, we should try to give voice to the women on Shaheen Bagh who have been interviewed by WIre on this issue. Please make edits but try to avoid full deletion. Thanks for open discussion. Rajiv.dhy (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Rajiv.dhy

Rajiv.dhy, you didn't address any of the concerns I brought up; tangentially related political mudslinging need not be added to the article. The article otherwise adequately covers the views of the various people involved in the protest. Do refer to what Wikipedia is not and refrain from making additions for which consensus has not been established. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

My Edit to Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh page

Hi, This is in response to your message you left on my talk page about the edit to Rashriya Swayam Sevak page. I removed the sentence "It drew initial inspiration from European right-wing groups during World War II" for the following 3 reasons. 1) Looks suspiciously like an edit planted with the intention of maligning the organization by comparing it to the Nazi party. 2) The citation given for this statement seems dodgy at best. 3) Please see what the Encyclopedia Britannica says as the inspiration behind formation of the organization "organization founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889–1940), a physician living in the Maharashtra region of India, as part of the movement against British rule and as a response to rioting between Hindus and Muslims."

Kindly revert your edit if you find the above explanation logical.

P.S. Kindly stop telling random people to use the sandbox. Seems condescending at best.

--Sahir 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Sahirshah § August 2020. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Violence on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alt News, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Kindly appreciate on-going discussion basis RFC, which you have been ignoring evidently so far. Understand that Wikipedia is not your playground and its not your version, rather neutral POV goes on to the site. Warning you to avoid such edit war on the mentioned article and request you to look forward on how the consensus starts developing in the talk page rather than hurrying for the conclusion. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Karthikndr, you need to familiarise yourself with how the WP:RFC process functions. "Having the last word" isn't a consensus of any sort and I am not obliged to respond to every single comment there especially when you have continued to ignore policy based objections. The RfC has neither received sufficient third party input nor is there a consensus on the talk page and as such I reverted it back to the status quo (see 12:21, 29 April 2019 to 17:08, 25 August 2020). I would also recommend avoiding inappropriate usage of warning templates. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points:

• Firstly I would like to justify the warning - because you have have reverted every such edits from every such users. I don't have to necessarily provide links like you have provided. Got lot of work to be done unlike focusing on one single article. Warning is provided on potential edit warring which is quite evidently happening so I'm no way reconsidering it.
• Regarding the RFC, it's understandably long process for which you don't have any patience. Neither you have acknowledged my point on sounding it promotional in the lead section.

Anyways, my warning stands. I'll monitor the talk page for the RFC. You keep the article space the way you want it atleast until the RFC is closed. - seems that's how you want it. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Karthikndr, if you continue to introduce original research, fail to cite sources, misuse primary sources and engage in improper cite tagging then your edits will be reverted. You do also have an obligation to adequately explain your additions or changes whether through links or not and if contested it is necessary that you gain a consensus before implementing such changes rather than repeatedly attempting do so during an ongoing discussion.

On the matter of the "promotional" objection, I find it to be meaningless when you consider a change in tense to be sufficient in mitigating it, brought up just to say something in pursuit of your specific editorial goals. Otherwise, I have taken into consideration most of the other concerns which were brought up, which you don't seem to understand. Anyways, at this point all I can say is that if you continue this pattern of behavior, I will have no choice but to take this to ANI. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for intrusion. Can you please tell me what ANI is? I am new here so couldn't understand and got confused it with ANI instead. Thanks. BeeJayPeeSocks (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

BeeJayPeeSocks, ANI on Wikipedia refers to Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. That aside, I'd recommend changing your username which might be a borderline violation of WP:ATTACKNAME as well as reading through WP:COI. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tayi for your help to a newbie on Wikipedia. My username is symbolic to tyranny we Indians are living in and a symbolical support to victims of the incumbent Central Government. Nevertheless, I will consider changing it. Regarding WP:COI, my sponsors pay for my internet alone, should I be disclosing that too? Thanks again and apologies for intrusion in an unrelated section. BeeJayPeeSocks (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

BeeJayPeeSocks, you don't need to disclose who pays for your internet. Just that you will need to disclose a conflict of interest if you are receiving any kind of compensation for editing any particular article or certain kind of articles in general as per the guideline. Also note that this isn't a social media but an encyclopedia, it's alright to have political opinions but make sure that doesn't interfere with adherence to a neutral point of view when editing any article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extremely Sorry! need Help!

I am really sorry about the previous edits I made. I was making edits from my POV and I know that Bajrang dal is a disputed area here on wikipedia. I really am sorry and as I am new to the platform could you please tell me how to find relevant sources regarding the article Bajrang Dal as we do not believe it to be a "militant organization" whereas it COULD be represented as a "paramilitary organization". please help thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbsic (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Superbsic, firstly I would recommend responding to the incidents page which would be the appropriate place to address your previous edits. Secondly, please thoroughly go through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then provide reliable sources which support the changes you want to make. To understand what reliable sources mean, see WP:RS where you will also find the appropriate instructions on how to find relevant sources.

That said, since you mentioned that "we do not believe it to be a militant organization". I must ask, are you by any means affiliated to the Bajrang Dal or any related organisation? If so you will need to disclose that before requesting any changes or editing that article per the conflict of interest guideline. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rumi on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't leave misleading talk page messages

Like here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.170.146.220&diff=cur

I provided the edit summaries and accurate reasonings. None of the sources support the information which I removed.

Be careful with your editing. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No you did not do that. You removed references, the content supported by it and added a unverifiable dead link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the dead link with web.archive link and also a workable recent reliable source. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The new RS that you've cited itself calls him an "Arya Samaj scholar" which is something you have removed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere it called him "Arya Samaj scholar".[1] It only calls him "Arya Samaj leader" just because he was one sometime in his life. Why it needs to be mentioned on lead? Being a part of "Arya samaj" is not same as being a politician or a social activist. The article of TribuneIndia also lays out that "He was expelled from the organisation in August 2008 after 17 of the 19 Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabhas in India expressed opposition to him." The lead must reflect that he was no longer associated with the organisation. The current version is misleading. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

An old version of this claims that he was the leader of Arya Samaj council from 2004-2014. Do you have an independent source which confirmed this information and didn't got it from Wikipedia? Lots of media is taking information from Wikipedia. TribuneIndia makes no mention of this dubious post.[2] There must be zero doubt that he was a leader of the council, from 2004, but not after 2008 when he was expelled from the organisation. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Tribune obituary is a media source as well and it's omission of the post isn't a repudiation. It is clearly mentioned in both articles from The Hindu (RSP entry) and The Indian Express (RSP entry) that are already cited in the lead. There's articles from 2014 which also mention his position, for instance this article from The Hindu and this article from The Guardian (RSP entry).

If Agnivesh's supposed expulsion in 2008 wasn't a permanent affair, then it doesn't belong in the lead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Why you restore original research "arya samaj scholar" then leave a bogus template on my talk page?[3] You need to act better than this.

I agree that his post from 2004 - 2014 can remain but why you are censoring the information that he was expelled from Arya Samaj? It was not temporary. But permanent. He was not a member of primary Arya Samaj group. Where is the source to confirm otherwise? 122.170.146.220 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't restore original research, the "arya samaj scholar" was cited to an article of the Pune Mirror which you removed in Special:Diff/978133165.The warning template was quite appropriate, since you assumed something without it being explicitly stated by one source and the other source directly contradicting your addition. You've also gone well beyond the 3-revert rule which I would highly recommend avoiding and to self revert, you can always insert your addition once a discussion is over. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

He was expelled from Arya Samaj in 1976. I found multiple expert sources on Arya Samaj here who are also academic. Religion and Politics in India: A Study of the Role of Arya Samaj, written by Anupama Arya, published by K.K. publications, 2001, noted "Swami Agnivesh and their other four followers from the primary membership of the Arya Samaj for indiscipline and misuse of the money of the Punjab Arya Pratinidhi Sabha in its general body meeting held on November 22, 1976." While The Legacy of Women's Uplift in India: Contemporary Women Leaders in the Arya Samaj, written by J E Llewellyn, and published by SAGE Publishing, noted that "Specifically, the international headquarters, the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, summarily voted to expel Agnivesh. When I interviewed him, Agnivesh told me that this had had little impact on his activities either within the Arya Samaj or outside it. ' It didn't affect us at all,' he said. 31 Yet the expulsion has never been formally lifted, even 20 years later."

These sources are more reliable than the sources you mentioned above. This information, in fact, correct, because Arya Samaj clarified in 1978 that "Agnivesh and Indervesh were expelled from the primary membership of the Samaj two years ago"[4] and also in 2008 (30 years later) that "Swami Agnivesh has nothing to do with Arya Samaj".[5]

Actually, now I assume this has been resolved now. If you want to reinstate any information related to his relationship with Arya Samaj, then you would need much more reliable sources rebutting these sources. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources are of course more reliable than media source, but there's a number of issues with the sources you have provided here. For one, K.K.Publishers is a commercial oriented publication which has both reliable and unreliable books, the author of this book in particular is likely neither independent nor an academic, OneIndia is also an aggregator which doesn't do a good job of publicising its source and hence can't be considered reliable.

Among the sources which are reliable, there are discrepancies where you can't pick and choose which to use in accordance with your convenience.

Llewellyn, J. E. (1998). The Legacy of Women's Uplift in India: Contemporary Women Leaders in the Arya Samaj. SAGE Publications. p. 195. doi:10.1177/097152150100800217.

Specifically, the international headquarters, the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, summarily voted to expel Agnivesh. When I interviewed him, Agnivesh told me that this had had little impact on his activities either within the Arya Samaj or outside it. "It didn't affect us at all," he said. 31 Yet the expulsion has never been formally lifted, even 20 years later.

Fani, S. N.; Sahi, Manu (15 April 1978). "Arya Samajis fight over control of Gurukul Kangri University in Hardwar". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (republished on 16 February 2015).

If the idea behind the Arya Samaj was triggered off by a few rats crawling over an idol of Shiva, it is, in a way, symbolic that there should be a virtual rat race for control of the organization. Lately, the Arya Samaj has been ridden with faction fighting (...) bespectacled owner of a shop in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. "Everybody is with us, except for two or three followers of the swamis. Agnivesh and Indervesh were expelled from the primary membership of the Samaj two years ago because they had embezzled some money."

Note: The "bespactacled owner of a shop" isn't "Arya Samaj" as you have claimed.

Long, Jeffery D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of Hinduism (2 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-5381-2294-5.

Agnivesh Swami (1939– ). Founder and president of the World Council of the Ārya Samāj, an organization distinct from the Ārya Samāj, a Hindu reform organization established in 1875 by Swāmī Dayānanda Sarasvatī (...) Due to a variety of internal controversies, Swami Agnivesh was expelled from the Arya Samaj in 1992, but he continues to claim fidelity to the original ideals of the organization and its founder.

There's by now three seperate dates which allude towards a expulsion, one in 1976, one in 1992 and one in 2008 (per The Tribune obituary). The references all however points towards a splintering of the original organisation into a disorganised movement. The media sources are also not incorrect in that he was the president of the "World Council of Arya Samaj," which is undisputed and you have removed it for some reason? He can also still be described as an Arya Samaji (or any of its variation) as has been done by multiple reliable sources which I have already shown previously especially when its unclear what state Arya Samaj is in right now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Tribune India copied Wikipedia article such as this one. So they hold no credibility here. Just like all other sources who are copy pasting from Wikipedia than doing their own researches. What "he was the president of the "World Council of Arya Samaj,"? Do you have any official source from Arya Samaj confirming this? On Google, I see this title being only associated with Agnivesh.

He was not expelled in 2008, it was misrepresentation done on Wikipedia by miscalculating this Daily pioneer source which was published in 2008, but nowhere said he was expelled in 2008.

He cannot be described as "Arya Samaji" since he was expelled from the organisation and he himself confessed he was expelled. Being "arya samaji" is not a profession anyway per MOS:OPENPARABIO. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Rowman & Littlefield book itself states that he is the founder and president of World Council of the Arya Samaj. Which is confirmed by the various media article, which give an exact time period of his presidency. In light of the book itself, it can probably be stated that this Council is a group distinct from the original Arya Samaj which isn't something that was explicitly stated in the media source but as I previously said omission wouldn't amount to repudiation.

At times some papers do tend to copy from Wikipedia but are you seriously claiming that all of them have copied from Wikipedia and invented this "world council"? The Tribune article itself does not mention this, its the one which gives the expulsion date of 2008, which wasn't in the article. Even if we dis-regard all the media sources the discrepancy regarding the expulsion will still stand even while using only academic sources. The Daily Pioneer source is also likely an unattributed press release from somewhere.

MOS:OPENPARABIO doesn't state anything about profession. It refers to roles and activities, for which we are taking cues from secondary sources. Being an Arya Samaji, Arya Samaj leader or Arya Samaj scholar, whatever you want to call it is pretty noteworthy activity and would merit inclusion in the first paragraph. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was an improvement than what you are blabbering so far, but it was still pretty senseless for the reasons I have provided on the talk page. We can continue there. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ

@Tayi Arajakate: Are comments disallowed at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ? I don't see the mechanism. NedFausa (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a talk page, that's the FAQ template which shows up at the top of Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Yes, I understand that. But how does one comment on the content of this FAQ page—how is consensus for inclusion achieved? NedFausa (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

One can comment on the talk page such as under the section Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput § FAQ draft. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Neverball on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at The Hindu § Section about controversies and criticisms is missing

 You are invited to join the discussion at The Hindu § Section about controversies and criticisms is missing. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rashtriya Lok Samata Party have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Hi...i think it happened inadvertently. Plz see the newspaper source i provided which contain a table which explicitly writes rhe vote share as per election commision data . If you don't understand hindi i will explain it to the articles talk page. Feel free to ping me. Thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I am not the best at Hindi but I can still read it. I would also suggest self-reverting because there are too many issues in your edit, if you want to add vote shares of the party itself then you should create a separate subheading instead of inserting it at a random place under the section on history (see Indian National Congress for example). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

will do it when get time.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I'm sorry but I will have to revert back. You can create a separate section on vote shares, the reference itself is still present in the article and please keep it on point, it's not supposed to be listing of vote shares of every other party in the assembly. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The original research was in reference to your edit in the last paragraph with lines such as "the factionalism in the RLSP went unbated even during the 2020 Bihar Assembly Elections" and "this caused Bhudeo Choudhary, the State president of RLSP to leave the party and join Rashtriya Janata Dal before before the elections" which are not explicitly supported by any source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That also is not original research see.Singh, Santosh (2020-10-01). "In Bihar, alliances try to outdo each other for larger share of Dalit votes". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2020-10-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)Heba Aisha (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, it says Bhudeo Choudhary left RLSP to join the RJD but not because RLSP left the Grand Alliance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tewary, Amarnath (2020-09-29). "Upendra Kushwaha out of 'mahagathbandhan', stitches new alliance with BSP". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-10-04. Here is the source for that too.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, it's the same. I've have searched for this already, the sources that mention Bhudeo Choudhary state that he left the RLSP to join the RJD after RLSP left the Grand Alliance/Mahagathbandhan. But they do not explicitly state that he left because of it so we can not state the RLSP's exit caused Choudhary's exit. If you read the paragraph after my edit, you'll get what I'm saying. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok i got it now Have a good day and happy editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening WP:Rfc.

Untill discussion is over the editing of content under discussion amount to WP:Vandalism...discussion can go for 30 days.Plz be aware with rules of WP:RfcHeba Aisha (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't amount to vandalism. Please read the policies you're citing and stop making up your own rules. You also need to format that RfC properly, instructions for which are present in that link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. See.Heba Aisha (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This would mostly apply to you since it's you who wants to include material, not to mention that's not vandalism. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

But that section was under Rfc and u removed that only.Try to understand.By the way admins will take note soon.Heba Aisha (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the question in the RfC that you asked was if that section should be included or not after I disputed your addition earlier today. That doesn't mean you can retain it without establishing a consensus, let alone without even engaging in a proper discussion, just by quickly opening an RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, I'm bapi21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dilip Ghosh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. bapi21 | talk 00:20, 13 Oct 2020 (UTC)

Bapi21, could you specify what exactly you're talking about? As far as I understand, I made two edits on the page. One was a revert (Special:Diff/983183551) and other was this one (Special:Diff/983189104). The revert included re-instatement of mass removal of reliably cited material and the other was removal of the misrepresentation of this source in your edit as well as re-instatement of this material that you had removed in the same edit, as in this one. (Special:Diff/983187268). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput cause of death

Well even the hindi wikipedia has updated Sushant's cause of death to "murder" so why isnt it updated here,if i may ask? RadhaRickk (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

RadhaRickk, the Hindi wikipedia page was vandalised. It's fixed now, thank you for informing. If you want to know why we will not add "murder" as the cause of death then please click the follow link. Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput § FAQ — READ THIS FIRST if you are requesting changes Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey please edit it and it is a mysterious death we all know Jamistrue (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You should click on the link above and take your objections to that page if you have to. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput

You reverted the changes I had made but why did you not add that Arnab Goswami has presented a tape record stating the lies of Dr. Sudhir ruling out the murder. Von de leorde (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Von de leorde, because we will not add any sensationalist allegations against people especially from dubious sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What is dubious source? Please attach all the facts Jamistrue (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamistrue, dubious sources are those sources without a good reputation for fact checking. The relevant facts are present in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Haha but Arnab Goswami did a sting operation on Dr. Sudhir Gupta just mention it in wikipedia if you have guts. Jamistrue (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamistrue, Arnab Goswami and his Republic TV both have a poor reputation of fact checking and are not considered as reliable sources. We also will not add defamatory allegations against low profile people as it violates our guidelines on biographies of living people. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok then add that Sushant donated 1 crore rupees on his fan's name. Jamistrue (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamistrue, now this I can do as it does seem like an interesting fact which was sufficiently covered by reliable sources. I have added it in his article, under the section on "2018–2020: Entrepreneurial debut and later career". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Where I cant see. Jamistrue (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamistrue, it is at the end of the third paragraph of the section. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Done! One thing is missing the trailer got most likes in terms of a trailer. You must have add this fact. Jamistrue (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

www.news18.com › movies Web results Sushant Singh Rajput's Dil Bechara Trailer Crosses 1 Crore Likes on YouTube Jamistrue (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

www.indiatvnews.com › sushan... Sushant Singh Rajput starrer Dil Bechara trailer smashes all records on YouTube ... Jamistrue (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Add this too. Jamistrue (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamistrue, we don't generally focus on movie trailers unless they are exceptionally noteworthy for some reason. The article mentions that Dil Bechare received 95 million (9.5 crore) viewers within 24 hours of its release. In comparison, the movie's trailer getting 1 crore likes on YouTube would not be important enough to be mentioned. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

, "Dil Bechara trailer becomes first trailer in the world to achieve 10 million/1 crore likes." Jamistrue (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Add this fact dont be coward. Jamistrue (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tell me your real identity. If you are a real person I think you are paid for hiding things. Jamistrue (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Really don't care what you think, and asking people their real identities makes you look suspicious now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And I will warn you to stop IMMEDIATELY. We have specific policies on this sort of behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing my cited reference

Can you please explain me the reason for removing The Pioneer reference here] in Sushant Singh Rajput. TrendSPLEND ^✉ 07:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

TrendSPLEND, well yes. I'm trying to keep all the references on the page of standards, due to the amount of misleading reports or misinformation coming out of even established outlets. I haven't seen much from the The Pioneer on Sushant Singh Rajput per se but in general it's a bit tabloidish nowadays, so I replaced it with two articles from GQ and The Indian Express (RSP entry) respectively. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

East Bengal GA

Did you fail the article? If no, then it got failed while parent page move.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, I didn't. From what I can see, the move caused an error with the bot. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

hmm. I see...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, could I ask you about the reason for the page move, by the way? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

the club changed to Sports Club from Football Club  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, I'd suggest adding that in the history as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The time when I nominated it, situations were totally different. No such notable things happened worth to be mentioned. And there were some speculations at that time, but that WP:CRYSTAL. So, I planned, if the GA gets done I will work on it. but, all announcements are happening from late September. Thus didn't get adequate time for expansion according to GA standard..  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  12:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, you can still add recent major events because otherwise the article would be incomplete. If you want I can put the review on hold for a week and just include all the recent changes as a part of the review. Although I would recommend using better sources than facebook pages in general, and a bit of improvement on other sources, for example I can see two blog sources; East Bengal Club Records and The Hard Tackle. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would have expanded today, but the problem is, I'm unwell. Can't concentrate on anything. So, I'd request you to wait for a week (if possible), otherwise kindly review on the existing version.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, okay, I'll put the review on hold for a week and get well soon! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks a lot.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added the required things in the article.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, okay, make sure it's otherwise up to date as well. I'll pull it off hold and complete the review by tomorrow. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, yes, otherwise its upto date.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to reply

I got what you want to say. But for the peace of my mind plz don't reply on my talk page as I m not able to handle ur method of dealing with other editors. While I m calm talking to u.you do not want to listen to others. So its my humble request to not reply as I will look it as Wikipedia #Harrassment Heba Aisha (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I'll not post anything on your talk page if that is what you want. My intention is not to cause any discomfort to you but you should realise that you are editing a contentious topic area and can not be cavalier with what you write on the mainspace (articles which are publicly visible). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I did any blunder. Will not repeat in future.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I hope you'll be more careful from here on and have a good day! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Kodiyeri Balakrishnan

Hi! Can you please explain why you have reverted the edits that I had made to Kodiyeri Balakrishnan? Vikram Vincent 11:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion here so that I can understand which is the correct approach to adding content on controversy involved with family members that are widely reported in the news. Vikram Vincent 12:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place, I had pinged you on the talk page of the article but since you opened a discussion on BLP noticeboard, I will be responding to you there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Krao212

Hi! You gave me a notification about my disruptive editing. Which edits specifically were you referring to? For every edit I give an explanation in according with wikipedia editing guidelines so there shouldn't be any issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is in reference to these two edit of yours; Special:Diff/987107482 and Special:Diff/979097154. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by a user

Hi, I believe you should see this. This very user has been pushing the inclusion of "controversies" here as well, based on WP:ORs. I've deterred them twice, but keeps on. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I'll keep an eye on them. That inclusion was a pretty severe case of original research, where they used opinion pieces and then went on to misrepresent them. Their other inclusions probably needs to be checked as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. That user gives of a "drive-by editors that frequent this t/p" kinda vibe. . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your Comment: Raghuveer07

Hello, Tayi Arajakate. i have made some changes and addtion to two pages related to Madhu Kishwar and Uddhav Thackrey. In one page related to Madhu Kishwar, unreliable sources have been used to write something which is sullying the repuation of the individual. I have already writting this comment there while making those changes - "Kindly see that there is no source provided to what is writtern after the 1st paragraph. In the fake news paragraph, I welcome your submissions, if u have strong views about it, but i have added one line, becuase it was looking like that person has been accused in general by everyone. However, I have checked those who have accused, it seems that they r strong critic of modi government. Hence, the statement needs to be qualified approporiately, as they sully the image of the person. Heading is not approporitate, it shuld highlight that these r controversies surrounding the individual."

In the second page related to Uddhav Thackrey, I have quote several sources which basically points to controversies surrourding the suject. If required, more sources can be added by me. This is the explanation I have provided . " Certain issues related to the subject have been which have been there in public doman and commented by the subject itself are missing from this artlcle. Relevant sources which are accepted by wikipedia have been added. Please do not remove this without proper jutification. Similar, things are added in the pages of other indivduals as well."

if possible, knidly provide explanation, that why you are warning me for deletion and modification of fews things from one page and addition of certain things which are properly qualified by me to another page. In case there is specific criteria that any article related to one person - Uddhav Thackrey- can be classified as biography and nothing related to controversied that they are involved in can be written about. in that case, i would like to ask you to allow me to change the article about Madhu Kishwar to biography as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer07 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, both are biographies of living people. The difference is that your contributions included removing a high quality scholarly source and the material supported by it on Madhu Kishwar, while on Uddhav Thackeray, your addition included citing opinion pieces and material which practically read like a polemic personal blog and wasn't even properly consistent with the cited pieces. I would highly recommend carefully reading through Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor correction regarding Madhu Kishwar, the removed citation was in reference to a note rather than the material in the lead. The material was however supported by the reliably sourced text in the body, which is complaint with MOS:LEAD. I've now added the citations in the lead as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for reply, the citations that you have mentioned does not mention this anywhere "her reputation was considerably affected post the '90s, once she began to increasingly embrace the growing support for Hindutva". Please elobrate on this. I will elobrate on fake news part subsequently. once we can arrive on a consensus on this. Thanks Raghuveer07 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, the full line that you are refering to in the article of Madhu Kishwar is the following, "Whilst her earlier work in the domain were quite favorably received by the academia and fellow activists, her reputation was considerably affected post the '90s, once she began to increasingly embrace the growing support for Hindutva." The first citation provides a detailed account of her adoption of Hindutva in the 2000s and how her reputation was effected and her magazine Manushi deserted in the process as such it completely supports the given line. This is also present in detail in the body of the article. The second citation supports the same although in less detail noting that she is not considered a feminist anymore. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, to be specific this part that- her reputation was considerably affected post the '90s due to adoption of hindutva - has not been mentioned anywhere. Reputation is only mentioned once in the 1st article and no where it is mentioned that reputation has been impacted. In the 2nd article reputation is not mentioned anywhere. Anyway link is given for abstract, where in both the link impact on reputation is not disucssed. Thanks Raghuveer07 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, it doesn't use the specific wording. I've replaced "her reputation was considerably affected" with "her counterparts disassociated from her" which is a closer reading of the source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for incorprating the changes. I would like to slightly modify what u have written like this - Whilst her earlier work in the domain were quite favorably received by the academia and fellow activists of that time, some of her earlier counterparts disassociated from her post the '90s, once she began to increasingly embrace the growing support for Hindutva.

This is more appropriate to incorporate what you want to convey. This is because how many of the pre-90 counterparts disassociated cannot be quanitifed, all of them disasscoated cannot be said for sure.

Thanks Raghuveer07 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, no that's just weasel words. The line neither states "all" or "some" as either would imply a conclusion that would be unsupported by the source. For instance "some" implies that there is a division among her counterparts which isn't supported by any source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not mentioned in the articles mentioned - her counterparts disassociated from her post the '90s. This shuld be removed then. The source for definition of Hindutva is not accessible, shouldnt this be removed it cannot be verified.

Thanks. Raghuveer07 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, there is no restriction on using sources which are not publicly accessible. Both of them are also verifiable through their respective citations, I can't really take you seriously anymore here especially given all your contributions on other pages have involved misrepresentation of sources. If you want, get a third opinion on this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

please dont try to accuse others unnecessarily. I will involve others. As you are not able to properly explain where what you have written in this line - her counterparts disassociated from her post the '90s. it is ur opinion that you r trying to put,while citing articles, assuming no body will read the source. I would request you to explain this, else I will have to raise it for third opinion. Raghuveer07 (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07, the conduct note is very much warranted. The new dispute that you are claiming is something you accepted in the discussion just beforehand. Such behavior is a classic example of gaming the consensus building process where you make a concession and then retract it. If this is how it's going to be then I've no interest in continuing as it ends up not being anything more than a waste of my time.

For the record the, quoting from the citation; Anantharam, Anita (1 December 2009). "East/West encounters: "Indian" identity and transnational feminism in Manushi". Feminist Media Studies. 9 (4): 461–476. doi:10.1080/14680770903233076. ISSN 1468-0777.

Over the years, the editorial collective disappeared, leaving Manushi in the hands of its founding editor, Madhu Kishwar. With the rise of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a shift in Manushi’s politics. Numerous articles in the pages of the journal over the past 25 years produce or reproduce hierarchies of “East” versus “West,” Indian womanhood versus western feminism, and Hindu versus Muslim identity. (...) Indian feminists who may have had a stake in Manushi initially have all but renounced association with the journal lest they become tainted with “nativism” or be seen as apologists for the nationalist movement.

This has been summarised as her counterparts disassociating from her in the lead of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we ought not to be personal. I have not agreed to the changes you made. As a courtesy, I have only thanked you for making changes. I had already told you that I would want to modify this, as what u r writing is not presented in the article. Please see what is written in reliable sources under context - "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". it cannot be summary as inferred by one individual. I am not able to summarise what u r writing; the source here does not support the information as it is presented. Please do not take it personally - If this is how it's going to be then I've no interest in continuing as it ends up not being anything more than a waste of my time." you have given this my warning - "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Madhu Kishwar, you may be blocked from editing". I give attnetion to detail and that is y i am pointing to you. Please allow me to make changes in case you do not want to spend time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer07‎ (talk • contribs) 08:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The source does support the information as has been presented with regards to its context. The entire source is filled with examples of adulation of her initial works and contradiction or refutation of her later works. Wikipedia also relies on summarisation of reliable sources and not an exact reproduction of specific phrasing.

Your proposing of adding the qualifier of "some" involved acceptance of the change, on whose rejection, you are proposing the entire line should be removed. Not to mention, on the article of Madhu Kishwar, you had removed a lot more than that single line. And attention to detail is the last thing that was present on your additions on Uddhav Thackeray and India Today. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am only accepting the line if qualifiers are added. So if you are ok then, we no longer need to discuss.

Thanks Raghuveer07 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop vandalism on Tejashwi Yadav's page

Kindly do not revert legitimate edits, for they do not aim to put the subject in a good light. Wikipedia is not a hagiographical yellow paper, that you should be aware of. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, Wikipedia is not a tabloid propagating sensationalist nonsense either, especially on BLP articles. For instance, the claim that "Tejashwi Yadav is none other than Tarun Yadav" can only source be sourced to an article of The New Indian Express. This however finds no mention in the other articles which allude to the actual "controversy". It also does not become a hagiography if a particular controversy is disincluded.

In addition, do go through WP:BRD and note that using IPs to insert poorly sourced material or original research can be perceived as attempts to avoid scrutiny, in case the IP was yours. Accusing people of vandalism for not editing in accordance to yours wishes can be considering a personal attack, which I would recommend refraining from if you are actually interested in a good faith discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Was that "sensationalist nonsense"? Kindly use online search to find several other mainstream news articles on the subject. You are advised to keep this hectoring tone reserved for someone else. I am not here to be intimidated for I am only engaging in food faith edits. You are requested to refrain from unsubstantiated rollbacks. I think, senior editors should be alerted about your ostentatiously motivated edits-- that I clearly see is the case. Thank you. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly asking you, do you seriously think that allegations of "eve-teasing" should be excluded? What society, then, we wish to sustain as Wikipedia editors? I have expanded several articles critical of the ruling dispensations, in the Bihar state and the country. You can see, I have never edited any article with any political outline. If I have edited the article about Tejashwi, it means I have done some original research on the concerned subject. I hope you understand. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, the onus is not on me to provide sources for your addition. If you can find a single reliable source which actually substantiates that "Tejashwi Yadav— operating under alias 'Tarun' — was thrashed for allegedly "indulging in eve-teasing on (2008) New Year's eve and were beaten up by unidentified youths in south Delhi." then you are free to do so. It do not matter whether your intention is good faith when you are clearly disregarding WP:BRD and WP:BLP while engaging in edit warring on that article and accusing others of vandalism. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

As is visible, I have provided multiple reliable sources. PTI as well as The Hindutsan Times. I shall add some more reliable news articles as sources. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, neither of them state that Tejashwi Yadav was operating under the alias of "Tarun", the articles don't mention Tejashwi at all. Another thing to note is the Hindustan Times article is derived from the PTI feed itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. Yes, use of word "operating" here could have been perceived as mischievous. I have rephrased it, establishing my original research with the confirmation from RJD. Yes, articles were generated from the news agency feed. But the fact that it's dependent on news outlets who use agency feeds, whether of AP or PTI, with or without edits. Secondary sources here are themselves reliable sources. In any case, PTI is a reliable source. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, PTI is a reliable source, the only point was that the PTI feed is the sole source of the line. More importantly, the source does not state that "Tarun" mentioned in the "eve-teasing" or "thrashing" incident is an alias of Tejashwi Yadav. That has been derived from a TNIE quote, which is a tabloid and not a reliable source, whose article itself is not about the incident at all. Combining sources like this is an example of original research which is not allowed. For allegations in BLP articles, sourcing requirements are also much stronger. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am updating it with stronger sources while establishing link. Probability of excluding this serious issue is ruled out. Issue is to gather sources and establishing original research which I am doing. Thanks. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll have to restore the older version. None of the sources with the exception of a ScoopWhoop article which is a clickbait site supports the addition. If there is no strong sourcing for it, it doesn't merit inclusion. Even the "benami property" is not much more than an allegation from a political opponent. Creating controversy sections like this are also recommended against per WP:CSECTION. The only noteworthy controversy was already present in the article incorporated as part of his political career. Same goes for the addition of his views with regards to the recent election, it is a collection of quotes and not an encyclopedic addition. Discuss this on the noticeboard for biographies of living people if you have to. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Should this then be included in political section, without creating another section? This doesn't deserve to be completely removed that you have done. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, I don't think so. It's a crime but there are no charges, there is no detail of what exactly he allegedly did other than catcalling and it is also unclear if it really was him. If reliable papers like The Hindu (RSP entry) or The Indian Express (RSP entry) (or it's Hindi imprint Jansatta) have a more detailed account of the use of an alias with the specific incident then perhaps there'd be case for inclusion. But in cases where sourcing is sparse and unclear, then it's better not to include anything at all. I'd suggest bringing it up on the noticeboard if you disagree which would bring in additional viewpoints. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I placed it on the noticeboard. Though I initially found sudden rollbacks of my edits ( for which I really worked hard) politically motivating, your arguments make some sense. It will be good to see what other editors have to say. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I found this article by the Telegraph India which has some interesting things to add: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/lalu-sons-thrashed-in-brawl-with-tease-twist/cid/628542 please see and discuss. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OptimisticNihilist, that does give a munch clearly picture and is from a reliable source. It can probably be included with some care as to how it is presented. I'll attempt to implement a short version of that under the section on his early life. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now added a summary of the news report in the article. Sorry if I had offended you in any way previously. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing though, please do not accuse others of being politically motivated or indulging vandalism off the bat (unless it's an obvious case such as this one: Special:Diff/987807247). It feels antagonistic and is detrimental to discussions which is what Wikipedia is built upon. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for it. Actually, when in the beginning I saw my edits being reverted without proper edit description, I thought that some politically motivated editors would be doing it, and you well know there are many such users. In any case, in real world, there is nothing wrong with any political inclination; however, professional decision-making shouldn't be crazily influenced by our political considerations. Then I learnt slowly that you were really helping me resolve this issue. For example, you introduced me to noticeboard for which I thank you. I also apologize if my sudden reactions disturbed you. This issue stands resolved.

Another issue about allegations that came from political corners regarding his alias/benami still exits which can be resolved by providing a brief text, adding that it was unnecessarily complicated by other parties where, in fact, his alias was mentioned in 2015 election affidavit. I am saying this because this was really a hot topic  in Bihar which was then found to be a non-issue or "sensationalist nonsense". I hope this issue finds your attention and mention in the article under political subhead, if necessary. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wedding ring page

I did not remove the supposed information (actually unevidenced assertions not supported by the article cited) without providing adequate reasonging - I explained my reasons quite clearly in the talk page for the article. The claims I deleted are without any foundation, as I explained - and noted in my edit summary. 82.75.191.121 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Nefertum

Dont remove all Changes in Hatred

I recently saw U Remove all possible edits by Me as Per your own Views????? Why is that i Update Episodes Number of Excuse Me Maadam Serial As of Daily basis You have problem with that too ???? Next i edit about Actress Manushi Chillar about her birth place and adidng Reliable Citation in Body Because annonymous users were Vandalising it So i Add Times of India citation about her birth Place remove that too ????

Dont be A Biased Reviever First review changes than remove Or Accept ur Bias and block me And end the Play if u cant Counter me.Samboy 01681 (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Samboy 01681, I'm sorry but all your contributions were disruptive. You need to provide citations for changes like that. The one page you bothered to provide citation already had citations from more reliable sources. I'd recommend going through wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you do intend to edit constructively. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem 😊😊😊 But for episode number i cant add sources its just that we update episode number of Serials regularly Also for Manushi I quote India Today citation as User were vandalising her Birth Place

Also A Ravi Mavi abused me recently for Talk page of Tomaras because he cant counter me with Facts Kindly block Him he is Really Caste boomer and has been Targeting me many times. Cheers. Samboy 01681 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Attempting to remove political bias from the article "Rhodesian Front".

Hello. I came to this talk section because I was attempting to remove political bias from the article "Rhodesian Front". I got an email, stating one of my edits had been reverted. I looked at the context of said email, and it said "Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rhodesian Front without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)". So I went back to the wikipedia article, and redid my changes with a lengthy reason why the edit to the article was factual. Then I received a warning stating that I am making a unconstructive edit to Wikipedia. I am requesting for me to be able to change the political bias in the article to a unbiased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graysonrpollard (talk • contribs)

Graysonrpollard, you seem to be removing material sourced from reliable secondary sources (two Routledge publications and a peer reviewed journal). If you believe these are biased, or if you have reliable sources which contradict them then you should use the talk page of the article (Talk:Rhodesian Front) to present your case, achieve a consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) and then implement your changes. Do also note that self descriptions from people associated with the front or from the front itself do not qualify as reliable sources. (see WP:RS). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please keep your political bias off Wikipedia.

It seems that other people have the same problem that I seem to have. You keep reverting our changes, even after we give you a reason why we changed the article. First you asked me to make a explanation as to why I edited the article Rhodesian Front, so I gave you an explanation to why I did, then you reverted my changes again. And then, an anonymous user using the IP Address of "206.75.117.22" (From revision history of article) seemed to bring back what changes I had made. I saw that a footnote was there that wasn't supposed to be there and fixed it. Then you blamed me for the actions of the anonymous user, and reverted the edit once again. I will be reverting my edit one last time, please do not revert it as a Third Party opinion on the article of the founder and the leader of the party, Ian Smith, which was the main figure of the party, was deemed to not be a white supremacist. There are facts and evidence pointing to the fact of the Rhodesian Front not being a) White Supremacist and b) Far Right. If you want to ban me for unbiasing a article on a political party, go ahead. That's what I like to call censorship. If you decide to revert my edit once again, I will go to dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graysonrpollard (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've referred this discussion to the incidents noticeboard at WP:ANI § User:Graysonrpollard. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning regarding your biased edit at Rhodesian Front

Hello, I'm AlphaBetaPapa. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. AlphaBetaPapa (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning: Don't revert abruptly

Refrain from editing abruptly, just as you did on NDTV page JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, quite unsure how one "edits abruptly". In any case, WP:ONUS might be useful for you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Avoid reverting without citation in lead of page NDTV

Refer, your This edit revert [[6]]. You have reverted citation request in the lead. Educate yourself about MOS:LEADCITE & MOS:CITELEAD and the essay says [[7]] that states "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". Refrain from reverting without giving inline citations in the lead. That is disruptive. SagittariusAstarJ (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

SagittariusAstarJ, nope, indiscriminate cite tagging of entire lead sections of articles as you have been doing is disruptive. If you have any specific line(s) in mind that you would like to challenge, you can bring them forward. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

SagittariusAstarJ, you need to read both paragraphs of MOS:CITELEAD.

I actually agree with you that sentences in the lead paragraphs should be cited, just like the rest of the article. The policy is that: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Given that the citations are in the body, it would be best to use the ref name feature to put them in the lead. Please use sensible names, not bot-generated names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. {{cn}}-bombing, in the circumstances, is Wikipedia:POINTY.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh Hooda

Would you kindly check this, large chunk of data has been added. Looks excessive, also note the warning for "political zealots" in the edit summary Facepalm . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, that was surprisingly well sourced although a BLP violation for sure considering the level of detail on each case. The edit summary looks pretty tendentious. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I believe it is the same person from Singapore I collaborated with in a few articles in the past. They mostly contribute to Haryana related articles. By and large a good contributor, just that they put lots of stuff that need trimming and maintenance work. This one for example was expanded by them from scratch. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, it does appear to be the same person. I am not so sure about that article though, seems like a lot of cleanup was needed on that one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. It is much smaller now after multiple trimmings, POV removal, cleanups, etc. I didn't do much in that particular article though, only maintenance work. Ironically, I came across that person when reverting some OR in Ambala article and had a heated exchange in their talk page (another IP). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tayi Arajakate, thanks for the cleanup/summary regarding Hooda's article. There is a reason for that edit summary. Some Hooda supporter editor had reverted that section just prior to the Haryana elections last year. That editor removed all traces of the scams, left no summary of scams in the article, completely wiped it out. It came across as a vandalism job by Hooda supporter. But now, after insertion of your condensed summary, I consider this issue closed because all the articles have been piped and no information is lost.

Dear Fylindfotberserk, the reason this article expanded by me from scratch is short now is that as an IP I do not get notifications when Pakistani user Störm violated WP:3RR on 21 September when he did 8 consecutive large reverts. He did not create consensus for reverts. He did not leave a message on my talkpage either. That user Störm deserves ban for 3RR violation, and article deserves restoration of those edits. I noticed it only now. I should perhaps add more citations to each subsection of that article to preempt future reverts, but that will a large project. I will do so when I have more time. I consider this issue still unresolved. Tayi Arajakate please restore those edits. I will inform you both when I make more edits to that article. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV

I apologize for my error. I have decided to not do anything at present. Let's wait for another 2 days. Let the decision be made after that, and if required, an edit can be made. Please visit [sources/Noticeboard] to comment on the reliability on The Times of India --Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, discussions are usually open until they are archived which can take as long as 30 days. Also, for Times of India, I don't think one can amend it's status without a formal RfC since it'd require overturning the last RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Tayi Arajakate, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you are interested in writing more articles about Indian women. Those you have already created look pretty good but you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. You are joining at the right time as we currently have a contest on Asian women. It would be good to see you participate. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for conducting 7 reviews in the October 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 48%. Regards, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diksha Basu

Hello Tayi Arajakate,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Diksha Basu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

John B123, you can see the state of the article now and see if the deletion tag is applicable anymore. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The article looks much better now. Regards, --John B123 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Help?

Hi This is my very first edit here and don't understand how to make suggestions or send messages - I don't know if you will even receive this. I've made 3 attempts to edit this article and have been receiving 'terse' warnings about 'vandalism'! Hardly 'conducive' to encourage people to contribute! In fact I'm on the verge of giving up as I don't need the aggravation when I'm only trying to contribute to ensure that the article is accurate! Instead of being 'reprimanded' perhaps someone could actually offer some assistance on what is wrong rather than telling me I'll be banned if I continue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mst58 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mst58, I saw your conversation with EN-Jungwon on his talk page. The first message that was sent to you wasn't a "terse warning" and it did suggest that you use the article's talk page to explain your edit or communicate with me on my talk page. Since you didn't do that until the third warning, no one else was able to tell what it was you were trying to explain in the article. In any case, I have edited the article now to highlight that the 1986 song is a different release. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes ... this being my first entry in Wiki I hadn't figured out how to send or respond to messages. So, for suture, what is the proper 'etiquette' - do I post a message stating what I propose to change? Mst58 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Mst58, that'd be ideal but it isn't necessary if your edit hasn't been contested but when it does get contested then that'd be the proper thing to do. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice work so far on the WIR Asia Contest!

Nice work @Tayi Arajakate: and @Naushervan: on the WIR Asia contest! Just saw the leaderboard Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/178 and you both are at #2 and #3, with 17 and 15 articles respectively, and are within striking distance of #1. Good luck in the last stretch of the month! Ktin (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Kavita Devi (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kavita Devi (journalist) 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/Kavita Devi (journalist) 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. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I always see you. Hope I do again. 👀 Firestar464 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, thank you for the kind word. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

finally something nice...Whenever I get an alert I always assume someone angry has come to my talk page. Firestar464 (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel you, lol. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Gökhan Saki

Hello there is no written source about his Kurdish origin but some things are simply obvious. I linked a video as source in which he visits his Kurdish village communicates in Kurdish to some of the villagers at 1:49 and dances to Kurdish music 1:18. I think the video material is source enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pYCOGLqbew 2A02:908:C63:D740:5855:BE14:F94E:72CC (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:908:C63:D740:5855:BE14:F94E:72CC: No, it isn't obvious from that, one can known Kurdish and interact without Kurdish culture without being Kurdish themselves. What you did above is original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. You'd need a source where he explicitly mentions that he is Kurdish at the least or preferably a reliable source where he is described as Kurdish. You should also cite any references in the article itself using the Template:Cite Web instead of leaving a citation in the edit summary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The video is about him visiting the village of his parents (In turkish also called Memleket). It is a Kurdish village and no you can't communicate with Kurds without being Kurd, especially in Turkey it's far from common that non Kurds speak Kurdish. But I see not facts are the issue here. As usual with Wikipedia facts don't matter political opinions do. This is why Wikipedia will never be a reliable source. Nevermind have a nice day. 2A02:908:C63:D740:5855:BE14:F94E:72CC (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:908:C63:D740:5855:BE14:F94E:72CC:, "far from common" is not the same as impossible. In any case, Wikipedia would especially not be a reliable source if we relied on the assertions of random people instead of verifiable sources. If you can't provide one, that's not our problem. I did a quick search and it seems sources that describe his ethnicity all call him, Turkish or Dutch or some combination of those two. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

reviewer 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 pending changes, 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.
  

Katie^talk 15:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

	Women in Red Women in Asia contest
	Tayi Arajakate First Place November 2020 - 26 articles WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate:, nicely done! Congrats on the first place! Ktin (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you to both of you! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate:, congratulations, great work on this project. - Naushervan (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Naushervan, thank you and same to you too! I was reading some of your articles and found them to be pretty interesting, you've done outstanding work on them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate and Naushervan: -- Nicely done this month again! Joint 3rd and 4th respectively the two of you? Wishing you and your dear ones the best for the new year! Ktin (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Winner WiR November Asia contest

November winner: Women in Asia: WiR Women in Asia contest, 2020

Congratulations! We look forward to further contributions in December. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Women in Red Barnstar
		For creating Kavita Devi and subsequently guiding it through an ill-considered AfD, thank you for helping diversify our coverage of important journalists. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, thank you to you too for the supportive message! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu

Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much.

The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with [8]). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Please help. 2409:4073:31D:2E39:C833:6D7A:B844:2E45 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@2409:4073:31D:2E39:C833:6D7A:B844:2E45: WP:COI only applies to people too closely related to the subject (such as the relative in the case of a person's biography or a employee of a company in the case of the company's article) which probably wouldn't apply to anyone editing that page. You should also take a look at WP:NPA and refrain from charecterising people as "religious fanatics". Now if you think two accounts editing the same page are the same person then you should open an sockpuppet investigation case against them, do read the instructions properly before doing so.

Otherwise, this just appears to be primarily a content dispute and I don't see any attempts at discussing this on the talk page of the article which is where you should present your case before anything else. If that doesn't go anywhere then you can resort to dispute resolution noticeboard. In addition, you can tag the article with a {{neutrality}} template and leave a message on the neutral point of view noticeboard if you think it is necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree with NPA, if provided with evidence it's not PA. If they are not willing to explain their edits in talk what can I do, they owes explanation, their edits are purely based on POV, so they have nothing to explain. 2409:4073:401:2662:79FA:91E4:FCF5:D0EF (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You can bring it up on WP:ANI if you want but I could tell you, it wouldn't go far. If they don't communicate after you directly attempt to communicate with them through talk pages, then there might be a case. Regarding NPA, it is still a personal attack even if they were what you say they are. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Most likely they won't show up in talk page. Anyway, I will try. If a thief is caught red-handed then calling him a thief is no personal attack. 2409:4073:4E12:2EA5:147E:6747:B16:CE53 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edit

Could you please explain adding "Bahu Lau, Beti Bachao, and Ghar Wapasi" on the page Hindu nationalism while the header clearly states "For present-day Hindu nationalism, see Hindutva". The incidents that I removed are recent and hence should not be included. Imaniward (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaniward (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Imaniward, the article on Hindu nationalism covers a whole variety of ideas including that of contemporary forms of it, such as Hindutva. Your edit removed reliably sourced material with an inadequate explanation, if you intend to justify them, you should at the least resort to presenting your case on the talk page of the article (Talk:Hindu nationalism) and achieve a consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) and then implement your changes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay but my question was that in the header it states that "Hindutva" is the present-day Hindu Nationalism. Bahu Lau, Beti Bachao, and Ghar Wapasi should not be included because it's a very recent phenomenon, it should either be stated on the page Hindutva or the header which states Hindutva is the present-day nationalism should be removed. Imaniward (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaniward (talk • contribs) 4:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The header that you're talking about is the WP:LEAD of the article which is supposed to be the summary of the article. The article on Hindu nationalism covers everything from its historical origin to its contemporary forms and hence should include both in its body as well as the lead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason for revert?

Could you state the reason for the revert on Altnews? You did not leave an edit summary. Imaniward (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Imaniward, I left a caution notice on your talk page regarding that. You removed reliably sourced material on both AltNews and Swarajya (magazine) with rather disingenuous edit summaries. For instance, on the article of Alt News, you appear to have removed the activities or standpoints of one party to a controversy while citing WP:IMPARTIAL. If you do intend to edit constructively, I would recommend thoroughly reading the page on our policy on neutral point of view. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Salma (writer)

On 8 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Salma (writer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Salma wrote some of her works while sitting on the toilet, on pieces of paper ripped from calendars and notebooks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Salma (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Salma (writer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sensible reference names

In this edit on 10 December I tried to clean up stupid bot-created reference names in NDTV. The 71 in Rodrigues-IndianNewsMedia71 was because the reference was to page 71.

But as you can see new edits introduced new bot-created reference names such as <ref name=":0" /> Then this edit has generated lots more stupid bot-created reference names, and also changed existing names to stuff like <ref name="Rodrigues-IndianNewsMedia712">.

People of course copy stuff from one Wikipedia article to another, and as the stupid bot-created reference names are very common it corrupts articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, I know about this issue, its because of visual editor which I'm much more comfortable using. I thought the new edit would at least not mess with the existing ref names, will see if there's a way to avoid it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It has done it again!!!! Fylindfotberserk has fixed the date format problems that your editing process introduced and I have reverted the addition of "2" to all the reference names - in my edit summary I thought it was just the reference names that that ended in a number that had this done to them - but I was wrong - it was all of them!-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I think I know why that happens now. Sometimes, at the end of a large edit it gives an error when I try to publish it and a way to bypass it is by copy pasting the entire section over the existing section which I think generates the "2" since it tries to avoid duplication of ref names. I can avoid it by switching to wikitext before publishing or just by making smaller edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you are not doing it deliberately. And if we give you feedback, you can figure out how to avoid the problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

After substantial edits, I sometimes do a diff. This sometimes shows up mistakes that I have made, allowing me to correct it with another edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Verve

I have responded to all your messages on the article talk page. Please see. BombaiyyaMag (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit

As you have reverted my edit but in actual the article of Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy isn't a Good article.गहराई (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

गहराई, if you believe it isn't a good article then you need to follow the good article re-assessment process if you want to delist it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hey there, user Heartily opened a discussion about you at ANI. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed the ANI you opened right above theirs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, that appears to have been closed already. Regarding that IP, I don't think it's related to Heartily, it's most likely JoJo Rabbit11 (talk · contribs) who is block evading and had jumped in because of this SPI that I filed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Undue section

I have no quarrel with your removal of the undue section.[9] But it might help smooth over differences if you put a few sentences on the article talk page saying that you did it and why it was undue.

Because there are three reports on WP:ANI and one on WP:SPI, people who are not involved are likely to look at what is going on. You have always acted correctly and collegiately. We do not want newcomers to the dispute jumping to the wrong conclusion, when it is so easily avoided.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to continue further seeing as those are more or less closed now, just need a CU confirmation. But since you're asking me to, I'll post a section which elaborates on the whole thing regarding false reporting, might be useful in the future. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Tayi Arajakate, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

great work!

Just noticed that you have created a truck load of articles through WiRED. Awesome! Happy collaborating. Best! Vikram Vincent 11:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Rashtriya Loktantrik Party

Please could you have a look at Rashtriya Loktantrik Party. The page came to my notice whilst I was reverting the efforts of an IP editor. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, welp, that was poorly sourced and formatted. Anyways I have cleaned it up now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year, Tayi Arajakate!

Happy New Year!

Tayi Arajakate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Shekhar Gupta

I have just seen that you have reverted my edits on the Shekhar Gupta page without any explanation, though I provided proper sources and it is a pretty well known controversy, which was covered in several newspapers of national repute, could you care to explain the reason behind it? Or wikipedia is a platform for a limited section of society? Ramprakash1000 (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ramprakash1000, I left a notice on your talk page and directed you to the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. You can't dedicate 3 sections and half an article to a single "controversy" especially in an article about a living person, regardless of whatever sources you might use. Significant portions of your addition are also not verifiable from the sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so the main issue is with the length of the controversial paragraph and not with the validity of it, why did you revert the whole content then? I will cut it short, but I adjoined reference links of newspapers like Hindu, Times of India etc which included comments of then Prime Minister and Defence Minister of India, who rubbished Mr. Gupta's reports and claims, it was a huge controversies back then, I am amazed at how it was not mentioned in the article, when it was the first time in History of Independent India when someone alleged such a conduct on the Army chief. I hope you will comply with the reports of Hindu and Times of India, I will cut short the paragraph, my whole intention was to give a better view of the controversy and not the increase the size of the article. Ramprakash1000 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ramprakash1000, that isn't the only issue. For instance your addition included an aspersion from Subramanian Swamy and V. K. Singh's reaction while omitting comments from the Prime Minister himself. Whereas the The Hindu article in your addition was primarily about the Prime Minister's reaction itself.

WP:UNDUE states that "[n]eutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Another example would be the use of words such as "lambast" or "rubbishing" which are not encyclopedic, nor present in the sources themselves and are more or less negative puffery, this is not a blog. Also note that the The Times of India (RSP entry) is generally not considered to be reliable on controversial issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understood your point, thaks for mentioning, I will take care of this in future, also, now I will add a short para in controversies while including Prime minister's comments on it. Will also take care of the language and the TOI reference. Thanks again. Ramprakash1000 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December Women in Red Asia Contest

	Women in Red Women in Asia contest
	Tayi Arajakate Third Place December 2020 Congratulations! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

December third place: Women in Asia: WiR Women in Asia contest, 2020

reversion Swati Thiyagarajan,

please read the citations before reverting changes! no further citation was necessary, as the what i updated was in the original citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.2.85.83 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Reports on racial attack on fellow editor.

lhaveabandonedmychild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have come to report the user named ihaveabandonedmychild since he used the caste name to refer me in mocking tone. It produces the offences like reffering a black person as un ethical words . That user repeatly edit the pages without proper citations and his intention is to mock the fellow editors. .kindly take action against him. Faster edits (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Refer my talk page for your reference Faster edits (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Faster edits, I can't do anything like this. If you want to report an user, you'd have to report them at WP:ANI. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank u for your support. Faster edits (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Namaste Trump) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree could you explain to me how does restoring blanking by a disruptive IP user constitute a content dispute rather than vandalism? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Explained edits do not meet the definition of vandalism. 2402:8100:2401:8297:4C36:B96E:244C:1940 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Content blanking is a form of vandalism. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I encourage you to re-read what "vandalism" actually means while I type a longer message with block details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I do understand what vandalism constitutes and as far as I understand, disingenuous or inappropriate explanations are still considered to constitute vandalism. The only difference here was that I was previously involved in the actual content dispute which the IP user is disruptively attempting to continue. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Disingenuous" is indeed correct; "inappropriate" depends on the situation. But interpreting these explanations as "disingenuous" without proof of malice is incivil and casts aspersions. And even if the explanations can be proven to be malicious/disingenuous, the edits can't be described by the following exception of the edit warring policy: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.". The word "obvious" is in bold at WP:3RRNO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, these "explanations" are the same ones that were repeated ad nauseam during the content dispute on both the article and its talk page half an year ago from a variety of IPs, that had to be repeatedly addressed and which broke the consensus building process, taking it 3 months to arrive at one.

It's plain frustrating to see it being revived with the same tactic which brings me to call it disingenuous, which I will stand by and if you really want me to, I could go through the previous dispute, and present you with evidence in the form of diffs on how it happened. In hindsight, I should have accepted your suggestion for an RfC.

But I'll admit that it isn't the same as obvious vandalism and breaking 3RR wasn't justified on my part, but rather a by product of the frustration as I had already invested too much effort in it. Would you willing to lift the block if I voluntarily agree to refrain myself from the article altogether? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think that there are more important things to deal with at this moment? What will happen on RFC? People will likely endorse the use of medical sources for medical claims and it will only waste time cause enough users already said that. Many politicians engage in spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories all the time against their opponents. Why such claims should be added on Wikipedia when they are not expert in the field of medicals? It might be more better for both of us if you agree with self-reverting and don't create a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2401:8297:4C36:B96E:244C:1940 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No one with an account has said that the allegations attributed to the ones making them need medical sources to be verifiable. Neither is there a single RS which describes their claims as hoaxes or conspiracy theories, they simply report that they made those allegations which is how it is presented in our article as well.

In any case, I am not going to participate in this dispute anymore so bring this up on the article's talk page and not here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional information

• The page previously had been fully protected twice by two administrators due to persistent edit warring about the same content, and you have participated in both edit wars (you, you, other user, protection. Other user, you, protection). This is the third time your reverts about the same content created a need for intervention.
• The edit war has been reported on my talk page; the reporter has been blocked in the same way to prevent further reverts.
• The page has been semi-protected for a year to prevent further disruptive IP address hopping, in accordance with an exception listed in the semi-protection policy for such cases.
• "Content removal" is not a synonym for "vandalism", just as "content addition" is not. Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia. Vandalism can happen through content removal or addition; most childish vandalism is probably adding content. Your mention of "vandalism" furthermore seems to refer to the "obvious vandalism" exception at WP:3RRNO, which definitely does not apply to your edits. If you genuinely (still) think it does, you need to stop reverting any edits until you understand this.
• WP:ONUS and WP:BLP usually favor the removal, not the addition, of disputed content. There are cases where the removal of content happens so clearly against consensus/policy that reverting many times may be tolerated, but this is really not the case here.
• The following notices are important; please carefully have a look at them.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - 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 these sanctions. 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.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, on a second look at the edit history of the page and should probably point out some things regarding your summation of the edit war. I can't see how my previous conduct was problematic in any sense that'd warrant a "need for intervention". See the full summation of the edit warring for instance.

• Special:Diff/958910205 Account 1 Special:Diff/959701645 IP Address
• Special:Diff/959713111 Account 1 Special:Diff/959716847 (Account A; this account never engages on the talk page)
• Special:Diff/959735275 Me Special:Diff/959736162 IP Address
• 10:14, 30 May 2020 Me Special:Diff/959737161 IP Address
• Special:Diff/959739904 Account 1 Special:Diff/959740227 IP Address
• Page Protection

I restricted myself to discussing this at the talk page from 10:20, 30 May 2020 onwards; See Namaste Trump and COVID-19 and Talk:Namaste Trump#RFC over which a consensus was established at a later date.

• Special:Diff/965317110 Account 1 Special:Diff/965649833 IP Address
• Special:Diff/965650848 Account 1 Special:Diff/965652093 IP Address
• Special:Diff/965981580 Account 2 Special:Diff/966107977 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966116284 Account 3 Special:Diff/966119591 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966120148 Account 3 Special:Diff/966120244 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966120537 Account 3

The only other revert that I had made was a reversion of wording changes and not the addition, that too over a month later. All you need to do is click on the diff you yourself have presented to see that. On this, I restrict myself to discussing it at the talk page from 18:09, 5 July 2020 onwards; See Wording dispute and NOR/N over which a consensus was established during page protection.

• Special:Diff/966120972 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966127417 Account 2 Special:Diff/966135570 IP Address
• 15:52, 5 July 2020 Me Special:Diff/966192002 Account B
• Page Protection
• Special:Diff/966436402 Account 3 Special:Diff/966443108 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966443741 Account 3 Special:Diff/966444526 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966444761 Account 3 Special:Diff/966445326 IP Address
• Special:Diff/966446745 Account 3
• Semi Protection
• The first dispute is again revived. Special:Diff/966478877 Account B
• Special:Diff/982528280 Account 4 Special:Diff/985849533 IP Address
• The present edit war takes place after this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate, thank you very much for the detailed lists; this is impressive.

Regarding the first list: I'd say Special:Diff/959735275 already went a step too far. There was a clear disagreement between multiple editors that had already resulted in edit warring, and your response was to join the war. That single diff on its own is tolerable, no worries, but Special:Diff/959736961 just adds fuel to the burning fire. It also lacks any explanation for the revert; at this point, you're already treating the IP editor like a vandal (e.g. WP:ROLLBACKUSE #1); I assume you clicked the red Twinkle link. This disruption alone, strictly speaking, would already have justified a block.

Regarding the second list, yes, it's debatable whether that is "the same content". It's the same section, it's about criticism again, and – as the diffs I checked again do show clearly – you're reverting byte-by-byte a contribution that was undone and restored before, starting an edit war (compare the definition of wheel warring, which is interpreted much more strictly but explains the general issue: When does the war start? Well, with an edit like yours).

Regarding the third list: I did not take them into account; my third list would be [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. And while the block is about edit warring in general, these diffs also show a violation of the three-revert rule – to make matters worse, in favor of content you have re-introduced yourself after its removal (WP:BRD?).

It's just an essay, but WP:DISCFAIL might be the most recommendable essay I regularly link to.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Special:Diff/959735275 was made at a time when the discussion on the talk page stood at this, where there is a general agreement that it can be included. I did use Twinkle for Special:Diff/959736961 in response to an IP editor reverting it with an edit summary stating, "nobody cares about political feud of opposition nonamer throwing his tantrum". This justifies a block on my part? That's clearly an inappropriate one and I didn't use WP:ROLLBACK, I don't even have the user right.

In Special:Diff/966147435, I reverted byte-by-byte a contribution that was restored with no edit summary after being undone. In either case, I wasn't informed by any of the administrators or editors involved regarding any edit warring or disruption on my part at the time and I primarily restricted myself to the talk page.

As I have already said, I don't disagree that my more recent conduct wasn't justified and if you go through my contributions you wouldn't find any instance of edit warring other than this. So all I'm asking is if you would be willing to lift the block if I agree to refrain from participating further on the page altogether? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The "nobody cares" edit summary is biased and arguably aggressive, but it is about the disputed content and explains the revert. It's an inappropriately worded version of "WP:ONUS" or "not relevant enough to be mentioned with such undue weight". A summary-less revert isn't a good response to such edits; see also WP:EDITCON ("Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism.") and WP:UNRESPONSIVE ("When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it."). Perhaps we can agree that the revert was "controversial". I have referred to WP:ROLLBACKUSE because Twinkle's red revert link mimics what this guideline tries to limit based on the two aforementioned policies.

To an experienced editor active in countervandalism who cares about a specific article, seeing full protection as a result of one's edits should have been a warning sign: Instead of taking one side in the dispute, such as by semi-protecting after IP BLP violations, an administrator chose to prevent any further edits. (Side note: This applies even to administrators; protected pages may not be edited [by anyone] except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus.) This is practically a partial block from editing for all participants of the dispute.

Regarding the block, if it was a full block, I'd agree to a conditional unblock with the binding unblock condition not to edit the article for at least two weeks. Now that partial blocks exist, such a condition would be enforced by converting the full block to a partial block. The result would look like your current block. Choosing the duration took me a while; I believe that two weeks are a good balance between the duration of the conflict (almost a year) and the usual 24-hour approach that isn't effective in long-term disputes.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I did specifically address the issue of due weight right after reverting it, in Special:Diff/959737696 and asked them to self-revert after they re-reverted it instead of reverting it again myself.

I'm asking for an unblock of the partial block because it's demoralising for me, on the condition that I should receive a full block if I edit the page in the 2 weeks. I don't intend to edit the page anymore at all so what harm would it do? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay – the block is still in place, but it's no longer technically displayed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Love Jihad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I know you are a paid editor of some political party.

One day you will be exposed like WifIone.

Ms Sarah Welch was exposed after long time as a sockpuppet, Mar4d was blocked as a sockpuppet, Faizan was blocked as a sockpuppet.

I am taking a break, wait till I come back.

Till then enjoy yourself. Don't fool others with fake infobox (This User is a Hindu), like Malik Shabazz fooled others pretending to be a Jew.

You may not be blocked, but topic banning you will be easy due to your excessive anti-Hindu bias like Xtremedood.

You are lucky that Jytdog is banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1112:776B:3418:E031:ECDC:84BD (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have referred this message to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Manasbose. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Political position of AITC

I guess oxford references are quite reliable source for citing political position. May I know the reasons why you deleted the edit (centre-left) ? Torque 56774 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Torque 56774, sorry, I did not check the edit and mistook it for an alteration without citation. Since there are two academic sources with contradictory information, the general practice is to take both into consideration and generally not to omit one while including the other. I've made the appropriate changes to reflect that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Bima Bharti.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bima Bharti.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Organized labour project

Thank you for joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's user space without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, I'm happy to hear that the project is being revived seeing as how poorly covered topics related to it are on Wikipedia. I've no problems if someone were to create such a card in my user space. I've one question though, since this is being modeled on Women in Red and Medicine, would there be events such as those on Women in Red to improve participation and coverage? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate, I like your enthusiasm! At the moment, my main (short-term) objective is to provide the project with a new set of tools which will hopefully facilitate collaboration and give better overviews of articles within the project. Awhile back I wrote to a number of the veteran editors who started the project with the following ideas:

• identify editors to focus on regional levels - esp. Africa, MENA and Asia
• start a newsletter
• targeted work on gender and unions (eg seeking support from projects on women, feminism, making women blue etc)
• generalised encouragement of editors involved (eg a Stakhanovite barnstar...not being completely facetious)

These plus the techniques used at Women in Red would all possibly help. I'm also conscious we've been dormant a long time, so necessary to get things moving sustainably, but even if we can get only four or five regulars, a lot more coordinated work could be done. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, as a suggestion, one of the things I've seen helpful to projects is generally a dedicated noticeboard for articles related to it rather than the project's talkpage being used for it. In general, I'd be interesting in helping out and might get back to some pages I've been thinking about working on for some time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate, there will be a number of elements (bot-produced) which will produced updated information about articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Article_alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Recent_changes. There will also be a monthly report on the most viewed articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Popular_pages. I hope to have the transition completed by the end of the month and we can continue this discussion on the project talk page. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Swati Thiyagarajan

On 12 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Swati Thiyagarajan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the environmental journalist Swati Thiyagarajan investigated claims of interspecies communication made by the conservationist Anna Breytenbach? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Swati Thiyagarajan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Swati Thiyagarajan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Network18 Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Business Today.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Thilagavathi

On 17 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thilagavathi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the artist Thilagavathi teaches social interactions and facial expressions to children on the autism spectrum through Therukoothu folk-theatre performances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thilagavathi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thilagavathi), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sangeeta Isvaran

On 20 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sangeeta Isvaran, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bharatanatyam dancer Sangeeta Isvaran works with deprived communities and uses dance and theatre in an effort to bring about social reform? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sangeeta Isvaran. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sangeeta Isvaran), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Radio Quarantine

On 27 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Radio Quarantine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Radio Quarantine was founded in India by a group of professors, directors and PhD students in response to social isolation protocols following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Radio Quarantine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Radio Quarantine), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pings

Apologies for the multiple pings. How many did you get? By my count I only used your name "twice", while linking your comment. I will use no ping template in future while citing your comments. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, thank you for the consideration. I got a ping every time you linked by name since you used Template:User link to do so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I only used the link and the {{u}} 2 times to link your user name. Did you get more than 2 pings? I had no idea you will get offended. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I didn't get offended by the pings or mean to sound offended. I might have gotten a bit annoyed that you were refering to me as "he" and refering to my comment as if it were a consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I assumed you as a "he". For that you deserve another apology from me. Please consider clarifying your preferred pronoun on your user page. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also none of those 2 comments by my where I pinged you, referred to your comments as consensus. In fact I explicitly called it "your opinion" and I never even used the word consensus. Walrus Ji (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC

As a filer of the RFC. Are you not supposed to comment? Walrus Ji (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I have no such restriction. Only the one who closes an RfC, especially for ones that become contentious, is generally supposed to be an uninvolved person. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I asked as I did not see your opinion on that thread. Walrus Ji (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-Publishing edits

Hello,I have familiarised myself with all terms and conditions of Wikipedia. The edits were not published due to biasness of writers. I edited the pages "The wire" and "Siddharth Varadarajan" as they were associated with "left wing" I was in Wikipedia since last 8 years,I had technical issues with my old account,so created a new one,I had contributed to Wiki significantly,so I am familiar with terms and conditions Wikipedia editors should be neutral/centrists,so kindly recheck the minor edit Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrperf12 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrperf12, none of your edits were minor edits, nor did they have any citations. Regarding the old account, you would need to disclose which account it was. You should probably read the guidelines on sockpuppetry, if it is a blocked account you would need to be unblocked if you intend to continue editing. I have left a welcome message on your talk page with a list of links to important guidelines and I would highly recommend going through them again if you really have went through them previously. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Param Bir Singh

Its been a while since you made this edit. However, I'd still want to ask. First off, thanks for the edit. Would you care to explain why this, rather well referenced section, was reverted ? I understand the reason given was vandalism and BLP unsourced. There are some parts which certainly looks like an act of vandalism. However, the rest of the section looks sufficiently referenced. The news article clearly names "Param Bir Singh".

For your reference, the revision I'm referring to is [15].

μTalk 16:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Muon, the reason given was vandalism and BLP violation, not BLP unsourced. Part of it was vandalism while the sourced material were exclusively allegations. It is still a BLP violation to provide disproportionate weight to such material even if verifiable. Another issue would be that the references used were not up to mark, it used Zee News which is a questionable source and The Times of India (RSP entry) which should not be used for contentious material especially in a BLP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you, Tayi Arajakate, for incorporating over 20 high-quality academic publications into the lead section of the Love Jihad article. Your strenuous research efforts have turned this lead section into one of the most well-sourced among all Wikipedia articles. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind word. Hopefully, the lead will serve as a blueprint for the development of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Already there is a discussion

Hello, I already opened a discussion regarding the notability of K. Surendran (politician). But if seems the consensus it that the subject is deserving an article. But you may tell your concerns there. [16] Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki, AfD would be a better place to address notability rather than the talk page of the article. The consensus on whether the article is kept or not, needs to be based on existing policy. From what I can see the talk page discussion suggests that the politician should be presumed notable because of his position within the party itself and that we should have a new policy for Indian politicians. This can't happen at least until the new policy itself is proposed and accepted. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes my dear friend. I also have the same opinion as yours. Did you read the discussion. It would be better if you your reply there with pinging the correct users. The problem is, I am not very well familiar with the notability of politicians. Or else, I would have opened the AFD at the first place. Other thing that concerns me is that the article was not moved into the mainspace by an uninvolved user. Some uninvolved user must have done that. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki, I did read the discussion, I just don't think we can reach a conclusion about whether to keep the article or delete it without a formal close so I fear nothing would happen if we just discuss it on the talk page.

And yes, the fact that the person who moved it to the main space has been trying to get the article created since the close of the 2nd AfD is what brought my attention to it in the first place. Anyways I don't know what else I can say on the talk page that I haven't already said in the AfD. The AfD would be visible to anyone who is watching that article and anyone is free to comment there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lets see how the discussion on AFD progress. If this article is about to keep, a new policy itself must be proposed and accepted. Otherwise this is a clear case of violation of our policies. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Love Jihad

The current information regarding Love Jihad that Wikipedia is showing is extremely biased & bigoted towards a particular community. The version that I've provided has neutrality in it, please consider to revert to my version. Such bigoted & false information can't be tolerated. If it means an edit war to correct it then so be it. I'm inviting my friends. ShivaKarma (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

He can try. I've blocked him. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Already there is a discussion, k surendran

nothing wrong with article its pure politics don't delete the article .it's well written and guy is enough popular. even iam not a supporter of his party .but those propose it first two times are belong to his rival party you can understand if you open their page .its not good to delete someone's page only because of his political party affiliation.User:Vasucrossroads User talk:Vasucrossroads — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article backlog drive in March

In order to receive notifications about future drives, sign up for the Good articles newsletter.

(t · c) buidhe 04:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 TN election maps

Cool alliance maps! Can you please add legend? Mathew strawn (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathew strawn, I've added representative colors in the chart, it should roughly correspond with the map. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! Mathew strawn (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Appreciate your excellent work in 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. SUN EYE 1 14:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Refrain from reverting properly sourced content

Refrain from reverting properly sourced content like you did on [[17]] you given this edit note ***the only coverage of the 2021 campaign in the article can't be a controversy*** this is your personal opinion avoid using personal opinions maitaain NPOV. DavidWood11 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you, the one making the addition to establish consensus for your addition, this is especially relevant when you intend to include controversies in a biography of a living person. Your addition which you included under the section titled "controversies" is the only coverage of the election campaign that could be found in the article, this is not a personal opinion.

WP:NPOV is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There is no dearth of coverage of the entire campaign, hence the only coverage in the article can not be a controversy, this shouldn't be hard to understand. You are free to add it in a proportionate manner and without any editorial bias if you adequately cover other aspects of her campaign in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jignesh Mevani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop giving block threat

Plz stop giving block threat as you did on page Yogi Adityanath while reverting my properly sourced edit without giving a proper justification DavidWood11 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1019048449 is not a block threat, it's a warning template which is more than appropriate in this case considering that the line you added is explicitly rejected by the same citation you provided for the line. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • You have again given block threat. Last warning you will be complained at Admins notice board DavidWood11 (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss relibilty on WP RS notice board

Plz refer your this revert [[18]]. You have mentioned in the edit summary that Times Now as questionable. Before labelling any WP RS as questionable discuss its reliability on reliable sources noticeboard. DavidWood11 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, there has been some discussion on RSN where the general impression appears to be that Times Now is either marginally reliable or plain unreliable, see for instance the comments here and here. If you want to dispute that it is reliable, you can start a new discussion on RSN if you want. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate The discussion you have mentioned is about Republic Tv and not times now. Times now has been quoted numerous times on wikipedia, and didnt have any reliability issue if you dispute its reliability Start a new thread and arrive at consensus . Random comments you quoted didn't count for reliability/unreliability. arrive on consensus DavidWood11 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The lack of a structured discussion does not mean that a consensus does not exists, at present there are multiple comments which discusses its reliability. In both the discussions that I've shown, Times Now was considered to be equivalent to Republic TV (RSP entry) without dispute. That said no one is stopping you from starting a discussion, if you want it then you can start one, it's not my responsibility to do things for you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The lack of a structured discussion does mean that a consensus does not exists. This is not fish market. You have and not me who disputed its reliability, its your job to resolve the dispute. DavidWood11 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That pretty much contradicts our guidelines on determining consensus, if you have nothing else to do other than pushing your own novel idea of policies instead of reading them then please stop bothering me on my talk page. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, by giving above two commnts from WP RS noticeboard discussion you try to mislead me as well. See here. Times now has been passed as WPRS by Winged Blades of Godric DavidWood11 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is funny at this point. How am I trying to mislead you when it is one of the two discussions I linked above? It gives a disclaimer that "Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) are best not sourced to news-reports by either of them and if sourced, maintain WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV." In other words, marginally reliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

However, as a matter of fact Times now has been passed as WPRS by Winged Blades of Godric DavidWood11 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

According to his comment, it passes as a reliable source with disclaimer against its use in topics related to politics, nationalism, etc which makes it marginally reliable. Not to mention, the use you are trying to advocate for is well within the topic of politics. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing his comment. Additionally he also mentioned "Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al". You need to learn about what tangential connection is. Read its defintion here. Its says a tangential connection is "If you describe something as tangential, you mean that it has only a slight or indirect connection with the thing you are concerned with, and is therefore not worth considering seriously",

However, Times now is not tangentially connected to Indian politics or Yogi Adityanath. There are tonnes of article available related with Indian politics avaiable on Times Now, Now stop the gaming. DavidWood11 (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Wire (India). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Eatcha 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, the onus for inclusion belongs on you. You immediately restored your addition after the first revert while we were still discussing it on the talk page. I waited for the discussion to end but it just boiled down to you ignoring most of the points raised against the inclusion, which is when I removed it again with an appropriate edit summary. You have restored it again and I don't intend to revert your addition any more but know that if you continue to behave in this manner, it's not me who will be facing loss of editing privileges. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, note that just because I have stated that I will not revert your inclusion anymore, does not mean you don't need to communicate anymore. You seem to be aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and have already violated multiple guidelines related to due weight and seeking consensus for inclusion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate, Please don't do disruptive editing on my edits. If you think, I have non factual edits, then do inform. Have a dialog stating why my edits facts are incorrect. You should look into broader perspective while doing any disruptive editing on someone's else edits especially when edits are facts based. Thanks. DellShivajiCrit53 18 June 2021

March 2021 GAN Backlog drive

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 2 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Add Semi-Protection

Hi, The Page Asianet Semi-protection is ending on 31 may. Please Re-Add Semi Protection to This page. EditzIndia (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

EditzIndia, the correct place to make such requests is on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Radhika Roy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Adil Zainulbhai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adil Zainulbhai 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/Adil Zainulbhai 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.

GermanKity (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Kruttika Susarla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kruttika Susarla 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/Kruttika Susarla 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.

GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Wire (India). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Eatcha 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, the onus for inclusion belongs on you. You immediately restored your addition after the first revert while we were still discussing it on the talk page. I waited for the discussion to end but it just boiled down to you ignoring most of the points raised against the inclusion, which is when I removed it again with an appropriate edit summary. You have restored it again and I don't intend to revert your addition any more but know that if you continue to behave in this manner, it's not me who will be facing loss of editing privileges. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, note that just because I have stated that I will not revert your inclusion anymore, does not mean you don't need to communicate anymore. You seem to be aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and have already violated multiple guidelines related to due weight and seeking consensus for inclusion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate, Please don't do disruptive editing on my edits. If you think, I have non factual edits, then do inform. Have a dialog stating why my edits facts are incorrect. You should look into broader perspective while doing any disruptive editing on someone's else edits especially when edits are facts based. Thanks. DellShivajiCrit53 18 June 2021 Hi Tayi can you tell from where you find opindia & swarajya are right winger but Alt news which caught multiple times spreading false news is unbiased website along wire quint etc.Bharat0078 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC) bharat0087

Bharat0078, if you are talking about descriptions in the articles, I would suggest taking a look at the inline citations for them. I would also recommend clicking on the links presented to you in the "welcome message" on your talk page and reading through them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Radio Quarantine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Radio Quarantine, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DJRSD (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi?

Hi there. Can I interest you in some temporary semiprotection of this page? The socking is strong in your "friends". Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen, yes! I'd like that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week. Just let me know if you'd like it extended, or shortened. Bishonen | tålk 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen, hey so would it be possible to revdel(?) this account's username in their contributions? It's just a bunch of expletives in Hindi after my username. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. What a lovely guy. Bishonen | tålk 08:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC).

Ikr, so charming! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Network 18 Group

Hi. Thanks for your great re-work and nomination to GA. Could I suggest listing the page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? It might be beneficial to get a ce done by an uninvolved editor as well! -- DaxServer (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

DaxServer, thank you for taking notice. I don't think it needs GOCE at present, I may be marking a lot of my more recent edits as "ce" but they are mostly just aesthetic changes and not grammatical corrections. If there are issues it'll probably crop up when the nomination is reviewed, you can also mention if there are errors anywhere and if you really think it needs GOCE then feel free to list it there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from edit warring

Refrain from edit warring just you did here [[19]] follow 3RR rule. DavidWood11 (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, yeah no. It's a BLP violation, if you want something to be included you need to establish consensus for it. Wikipedia isn't your personal blog for your partisan commentary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

how its a BLP violation...... DavidWood11 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, because its undue in the lead of an article which isn't even about the person. Not to mention it is devoid of all context. Read Siddharth Varadarajan § Legal cases, it's mentioned in there. How many times do I need to explain policies to you? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

About GA review

After seeing you review in Hajipur, I consider it correct, but there is a request, Please if you would remove any copyrighted things, or suspicious content, from this article, so that this article can be improved a bit...Thank you for your time to review diligently.. ItsSkV08 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

ItsSkV08, I've placed a template on the article, so someone should eventually come and do it. The copyright issues are mostly with some lines which are copy pasted (sometimes with minor changes) from other websites, the copyvio detector lights up those lines so you can remove them too if you want to improve the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ItsSkV08 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to tell you that as we talked about Hajipur article, I have removed all those Violation cites, and all that you said and tried to improve the article, will you check and remove that 'close paraphrasing template' please...or allow me.. ItsSkV08 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

ItsSkV08, I have removed it. There was still one violation in the climate section, but that's fixed now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much ItsSkV08 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Greetings,

For your information, a RfC discussion has been initiated in relation to discussion topic you were recently involved in.

Request for Comment has been started @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Me

Hello!

First of all, thank you for the review. It took a long time for someone to pick up this article. Once more regarding the first topic of the c/e I believe I won't address it since the article did receive a c/e by the GOCE before being submitted to GA and it's not a copyright violation, according to Earwig is only 22%. Just to point out, the references on the chart section with the collum are automatic so I can't really change that, however, I can see where you are coming from.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salma (writer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Salma (writer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salma (writer)

The article Salma (writer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Salma (writer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Vijayanagara Empire

I have nominated Vijayanagara Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Izno (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Izno (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit to The Caravan - Threats and lawsuits

Hi, I noticed that my edit to the Threats and Lawsuits section was removed for lacking citations. However, I had included 2 citations to articles by mainstream news agencies that contained verified pictures and CCTV footage.

"In 2021, police departments from Delhi and three other states filed sedition cases against many journalists and politicians who attributed the death of Navreet Singh during the 2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade to police firing. CCTV footage and post-mortem reports showed that the death was caused by the farmer's tractor overturning after an attempt to ram a police barricade."

Request you to let me know which claims are lacking citations, so that I can add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.226.217.169 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

110.226.217.169, I have checked it again. So, here's the problem, the sentence you added says "In 2021, police departments from Delhi and three other states filed sedition cases against many journalists and politicians who attributed the death of Navreet Singh during the 2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade to police firing. CCTV footage showed that the death was caused by the farmer's tractor overturning after an attempt to ram a police barricade."

The entire material needs to be directly verifiable from the citations, which the two citations don't do, deriving conclusions from them to make additions is not allowed per Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also note that Asian News International (RSP entry) in general is not reliable in cases where GoI has a stake in. And in addition, please consider that the article is not about the event or about the protests but about a magazine so excessive detail even if properly sourced and presented will likely not have enough weight for inclusion. The article currently has a sentence which does mention the cases. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Clarification needed

Hai @Tayi Arajakate: greetings,
Sorry to bother you, I began working with your suggestions on HAL tejas article, I would like to quote one of your suggestion from your review - "there is in general a substantial over-reliance on non-independent primary sources and press releases, from my very rough estimation they are cited for almost half of the article."– can you please tell me what you meant by primary source here (what are those sources)? It would be really helpful for me to remove them and if possible replace with WP:RS. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, read the section on primary sources. They are usable for basic information such as specifications and variants but not for others things. In the case of HAL Tejas, the primary sources are mostly the government sources; i.e, ADA, DRDO, PIB, etc and some corporate ones such as General Electric, Infosys, etc. In general, articles should not be using primary sources when secondary sources are otherwise available. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your careful and thorough GA review of the article Ada Baker, it is very much appreciated and has improved it considerably. Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You definitely helped the article. I went over the history of divorce laws in Australia and it turns out that divorce was only allowed in Australia in 1853, so it was only a few years after it passed royal assent that Baker could have even applied for divorce. It’s probably something we should add to the article about divorce in Australia, eventually. Took me some time to locate the Law Review article that detailed this though. Glad I did, the footnote definitely should help clarify the situation. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind message and for the receptive response to the feedback, Aussie Article Writer! Your work has certainly helped improve coverage of women on Wikipedia which I appreciate a lot too. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding reverted edits

Sir, i have provided each and every line with a valid citation, can you please tell me the exact line to which you said i dont provide citation. till your reply i am reverting your edit please talk to my talk page before reverting again, or in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktotommy (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

and about multiple issues tag, they are 8 years old, and the article now is free from the issues mentioned in tag, if you think there are still issues pending, feel free to add this tag again with other issue you feel, are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktotommy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Talktotommy, the reference you added is not a "valid citation", it's a blog post on The Economic Times. Your changes altered content which was cited to Reuters (RSP entry) and added a poorly sourced line. Any changes you make need to be verifiable to reliable sources and the onus is on you to gain consensus before restoring any content that you added. It's also irrelevant how long a multiple issues tag has been on, the article still has large sections of unsourced or similarly poor sourced content. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Carla Connor on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Brahmanism

There was nothing inappropriate contrary to your misrepresentation. The SPA removed a fine section[20] with a misleading edit summary and restored the section[21] without edit summary even though it was reasonably removed with a valid reason.[22] But your edit warring is restoring the problematic version. Aside this, your own edit to the article is misleading because The Hindu (fails WP:HISTRS) is just an opinion piece thus failing WP:IRS and the google book that you added does not support your text. Stick to the lead added after enough consideration. Instead of restoring the problematic content you are supposed to discuss after your edits have been reverted per WP:BRD. LearnIndology (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, you already know that I used Twinkle reversion to restore an earlier version. Be aware that this false allegation of "WP:ROLLBACKUSE" won't fly. LearnIndology (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

LearnIndology, twinkle rollback falls under the same guideline, this is just wikilawyering. Its purpose is not for content disputes. Not to mention, you didn't even bother to adequately explain your edit till now. Calling a contributor an SPA is not a reason for reverting, they removed a section which was original research in exactly the same way the section you wanted removed was, so stop throwing aspersions at people. The Hindu piece is from a subject matter expert and the book adequately contextualises the term's contemporary use. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought you must have understood with the succinict edit summaries I was using, but clearly WP:CIR is the case here.

Anyway, Twinkle reversion does not fall under the same guideline as WP:ROLLBACK. Don't misrepresent the policy and admit your mistake. I am not reverting anybody by calling others an 'SPA'. Don't put words in my mouth. See WP:IRS - we don't use opinion piece especially when they require WP:HISTRS. What SPA removed isn't "original research" but includes the clear instances of violence against brahmins - a part of 'anti-brahminism' ideology. Which 'expert' are you even talking about? An economist cannot be treated as a historian. LearnIndology (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

LearnIndology, Your edit summary was "no improvement", that doesn't explain anything, I would highly recommend that you stop the personal attacks, if you can't be civil in content disputes then you probably don't belong here. Regarding the dispute itself, the claim "... violence against brahmins - a part of 'anti-brahminism' ideology", is original research, the citations did not attribute the cause to Anti-Brahminism. The author of the article is primarily a political scientist, the article is about a political ideology/movement, the history of the movement and its origins might need HISTRS, but not its contemporary state. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There was indeed no improvement to the article. I don't recall making any personal attacks. Saying "violence against brahmins - a part of 'anti-brahminism' ideology" on this talk page isn't something that would require source as it is well propounded by reliable sources as well.

"What is called the Dravidian movement had its origin in the campaign of hate launched against Brahmins in the South towards the end of the last century . Anti - Brahminism probably asserted itself first in Maharashtra..[...]

Brahmins were perhaps the first to take to European education in large numbers."[23]

"The high - caste Brahmins, who held a monopoly on learning in Hindu society, were the first to visualize the opportunities offered by British rule and took to British education with great adaptability [...] In the natural course of events, this brought about a sharp reaction of anti - Brahminism which gradually developed into a movement. Meanwhile, the national movement under Mahatma Gandhi grew into a powerful force and exercised a sobering influence on the anti-Brahmin reaction of Tamiland."[24]

Your article does not talk about any 'movement' or 'discrimination, it only talks about opposition to hierarchical social order. This would mean that you are only half correct with your interpretation of an opinion piece (WP:NEWSOPED). Overall, there is clearly nothing that justifies your replacement of the much better lead.[25] LearnIndology (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonably accusing others of incompetence for what appears to be not agreeing with your point of view is a personal attack, "no improvement" as an edit summary for a rollback is not an explanation, unless maybe if it were obvious vandalism which it obviously wasn't. Saying "violence against brahmins [is] a part of 'anti-brahminism' ideology", and using this reasoning to retain a section on specific instances of violence where the citations do not attribute them to the ideology is original research 101. The quotations you have provided above don't even seem to talk about violence let alone those instances of violence?

Op-eds from recognized experts are also reliable sources, the article itself does describe it as a movement against Brahminism and explains it as incorporating discrimination. The "better lead" referred to the term's origins and nothing else, its appropriate for its history sure but not for the lead which should be an overview of the topic. The current lead on the contrary is more or less a concise definition which is much more appropriate. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Clarification

Hi Tayi Arajakte, Recently under List of brahmins article there was a removal from your side on the below

• Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay,Protector of Hindu people from the All-India Muslim League attacks during Direct Action Day

Notes stated for the removal as "rem unreliably sourced line" I did check with the referenced link which clearly mentioned "Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyaya was born in a Bengali Hindu Brahmin family" Could you advise why there was a removal,was it the link or the content stating " Protector of Hindu people" Please note that it was mentioned in the wikipedia article of the person. Please advise so that in future editing will be more cautious. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Pranesh Ravikumar, I removed it because it was sourced to kreately.in which is a user-generated site (it generates its content from user submission and doesn't have editorial oversight). If you can source it to a reliable source (mainstream news media or preferably academic sources), you can add it back. On a sidenote, since you are expanding the article and if you aren't aware of it already for living people's castes, there's an additional requirement for sources which show self identification to their caste. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Tayi Arajakte Note:Persons who have self identified themselves from their caste is only added For Living person as per wikipedia BLP in the article. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Your recent warning on my talk page

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Hindu mythology, you may be blocked from editing."

That isn't disruptive editing. Why are the holy scriptures of Hinduism "Vedas" being added in the mythology section? It's tantamount to adding the Bible and the Quran in the mythology section. And the Citation that have been provided is wrong as well. I assume you're a wikipedia administrator, kindly put your privilege into good use and please don't threaten me by saying you're gonna get me blocked because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Thank you! Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess) (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess), because the Vedas, etc contain mythological narrations? It is cited to academic sources in the article. I'm not an administrator, but if you continue adding or removing material based on your personal opinions and disregard reliable sources then an administrator would block you. I'm also quite certain the Bible and Quran are referred in the articles on the mythology of their respective religions, not that it matters considering they are all different religions and their texts say different things. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Citation is a book named "vedic mythology", it doesn't however mean the Hindu scripture "vedas" is mythology. Understand the difference!

Wikipedia is a global platform, you just can't threaten others that you'll get them blocked just because everyone doesn't adhere to your ideology.

I welcome you to show me whether where in the header of the articles of "Christian mythology" or "Islamic mythology" that Bible and quran are added and are referred to as mythology. Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess) (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess), the article states that Vedas contain Hindu mythology, not that the entirety of it is, which is accurate and verifiable from the citation. You can start a blog if you want to push your point of view, otherwise Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which you need to adhere to. Other religions are irrelevant in this discussion but if it satisfies you, you can read the articles on Islamic mythology and Christian mythology. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push my pov here,although that's something that you're trying to do here, hence you tried(twice) to threaten me that you'll get me blocked. Why should the mythology of other religions satisfy me? My point is very clear, so please edit the part where it says vedic literature (which redirects to the Vedas) as mythology or add other sentences to the article so the reader can understand that the article is talking about certain aspects of mythology in the vedas and not the entirety of it is like you have mentioned here as a reply. Thanks. Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess) (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess), I don't need to get you blocked, you will be if you continue like this regardless of whether I want it or not. The article at present already doesn't say Vedas are Hindu mythology, it says Hindu mythology is found in the Vedas. Regarding the question "Why should the mythology of other religions satisfy me?" I don't know, you were the one asking for it. At this point, this just looks like trolling to me, so you can leave my talk page and start a discussion on the article's talk page with whatever objections you have. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

'You will be blocked if you continue "like this"'? Like what?? "The article at present already doesn't say Vedas are Hindu mythology, it says Hindu mythology is found in the Vedas" Hindu mythology is found in the Vedas definitely means the former, so is it okay if I add or edit it this way, "Hindu mythology can be found in certain aspects of the vedic literature (Vedas)" ie..,the addition of two words "certain aspects"?

Ans no I'm not trolling you, you reverted my edit so I should be talking to you and that is what I'm doing. Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess) (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess), if you really think the two sentences mean the same thing then you need to improve your comprehension. I reverted you because you removed reliably sourced material and I have done more than enough to explain that to you. So I would rather that you leave since you aren't listening. For what it's worth, if you really want my feedback "certain aspects" isn't very meaningful in this context, I would recommend "parts of" instead but even that has potential problems and it's quite likely that someone else would revert you, which is why you should take it to the article's talk page first. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about my comprehension skills, how about the beginning of the article which isn't right, "Hindu mythology can be found in so and so". This sentence (Hindu mythology can be found in so and so)is subjective,it depends on the reader, if you have checked the talk page, you must have noticed that many people have discussed it, especially about how the vedas do not come under the term mythology. What's the problem in adding two or three words, I don't see any fault in adding "Hindu mythology can be found in certain parts of ....", why do you think it'll be reverted? If you are OK, can you tell me what the problem is? Jai Bhavani(Hail the Goddess) (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for cleaning up Komaram Bheem. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My addition to Nihang -- avoid removing properly sourced content for the third time

 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Even though I believe my article did not violate WIKI:RECENTISM or WIKI:OR, I have made some changes as per your objections. You can see more details on my talk page. But I hope this is the final conversation about this issue or I would have to report you to proper admin forum. Thanks TallMegan (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan

TallMegan, your addition was initially unsourced, then not verifiable and still is an example of a obvious undue partisan commentary. I had tried my best to explain Wikipedia's policies in the hope that maybe its possible for you to become a constructive editor but seems like I'm wrong, so feel free to report me to "proper admin forum" rather than repeatedly saying you will, it doesn't look like this is your first time here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mumbai Mirror

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mumbai Mirror you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of -ink&fables -- -ink&fables (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mumbai Mirror

The article Mumbai Mirror you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mumbai Mirror for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of -ink&fables -- -ink&fables (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mumbai Mirror

On 23 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mumbai Mirror, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 200,000 copies of the Mumbai Mirror were distributed on its inaugural print run in 2005, giving it the second-largest circulation in Mumbai? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mumbai Mirror. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mumbai Mirror), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons with Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

English invasion of Scotland (1650)

Hi there. You were kind enough to review my GAN of Battle of Halidon Hill, which is currently at FAC. I have another article, English invasion of Scotland (1650), a collaboration with Girth Summit, which is currently at GAN. We are hoping to move it on promptly to FAC, so it could do with a rigorous assessment at GAN. Hence your name sprang to mind. If you were able to review it that would be much appreciated. If time or motivation don't allow then that is not, obviously, a problem. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the awesomely thorough reviews you have carried out at GAN. This work is very much appreciated. From a grateful recipient. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the shiny! I too appreciate the work you do in developing articles to GA and FA standards, it's reading well developed high quality articles which got me invested in participating on Wikipedia in the first place, Gog the Mild. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ooh - I was just coming here to give you the same barnstar - Gog the Mild are we great minds, or fools? That was a super-thorough review, very impressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telangana Rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulshanabad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

User:Tamjeed Ahmed

He is not editing as per NPOV and is disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1a48:50fc:b0e7:9f1f:ff3e:8667 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, the correct place to take this to would be WP:ANI, if a problem even exist. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Have come across your name a few times but never interacted with. If you feel my evaluations are in error, feel free to correct them :)

Will appreciate your views on Women's Republic and Economic Times Brand Equity in particular. My issues are not exactly with reliability on an individual basis — the contents are mostly interviews. But are they reliable enough to contribute towards WP:N? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I have a number of articles that you have contributed to on my watchlist, and I appreciate your contributions there which are well informed and constructive.

Regarding the AfD you can just let it run its course. Interviews aren't considered independent so they don't usually count towards notability which is a different issues from reliability of sources. Do note that articles with interviews sometimes have secondary coverage of a person. I will leave a comment on Brand Equity but I am not very familiar with Women's Republic as it's not India specific so I will have to look into it if I am going to comment on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your words!

It is a wise observation about Women's Republic being not India specific: that had escaped me. Linkedin says that the company was founded in 2017 by one "Sai Sailaja Seshadri". She, as of 2016/17, was a sophomore at Arizona State University studying Political Science and Pre-Law and seems to have (obviously) graduated. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I will be glad if you mention your argument about interviews not counting much towards notability at the AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, sorry but I don't think I'll be commenting on that AfD. I'm fairly certain most regular AfD participants are aware that interviews aren't usually sufficient on their own. I also didn't say that they can't count towards notability at all either, an interview in my mind is mostly a primary source but it's also non trivial coverage, and can count towards demonstrating WP:BASIC notability for a biography (which is a lower standard than WP:GNG that would otherwise apply to most other topics) if there are multiple interview articles with some degree of secondary commentary on the person in them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vice Ganda on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Telangana Rebellion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Telangana Rebellion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ha... it's been on my to-do list for ages to get this improved; it is such an important event and really deserves high quality treatment. So glad you've made such progress. I'll drop some comments by the review page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, I know right.. and it's so marginalised in popular memory, I barely knew about the scale and intensity of this event until recently. I'm glad you'll be taking a look at it, I went through as many sources as possible with the little time I had in hand so I'm sure there's going to be many mistakes in my write up. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For your valued work in the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, which, in a single month, helped to reduce the backlog by nearly 50%. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your analysis

Thanks for your analysis at RS/P. I too saw the radical change of status, with no discussion on the talk page, as problematic, but that editor likes to add and defend myriad links to TDW, so the move makes sense, seen from their POV. They have started an AN/I case, which admin Liz has characterized as "an attempt to derail a discussion on whether a website should be deprecated as a source on Wikipedia", an obvious reference to the RF/C at RS/N. That's not good. Feel free to also participate at the RfC at RS/N. More eyes are good. -- Valjean (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

move

Hi, I've done the move for you. Perhaps it'd be useful to place hatnotes in both articles pointing to the other one. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

DrVogel, thanks. I have added the hatnotes now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

3 October 2021

Tayi Arajakate, you are constantly adding unsourced pov content in Joseph Kallarangatt. The lead section was long but mostly Unsourced. Hence, I removed it. Before adding negative content about the person, you are ought to provide reliable sources or create a consensus. However, you are adding newspaper reports and comments from people who lack notability.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, the lead is sourced from the body of the article where you can find relevant in-line citations. And it doesn't explain your removal of the same cited material in the body itself. Newspaper reports are what is supposed to be used to source material in articles, not original research or personal opinions of editors. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead must be impartial and should be backed with inline citations. You cannot add pov in lead section.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, is this your only objection that the lead doesn't have in-line citations? Let's say I repeat those inline citations that were already present in the body to the lead, would you still revert it? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Lead must be concise and must be neutral. It is always better to avoid controversies in lead and discuss them in the body. Your addition of comments from people who are not notable and removal of the notable comments are also unjustifiable.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, it included both the positive and negative coverage that he has received. You clearly haven't understand how the policy on neutral point of view that I narrated with quotes on your talk page. If the controversies are the predominant coverage of him in reliable sources, it would merit an addition in the lead as well. Despite this, I kept it on the lower end by restricting it to a smaller second paragraph in the lead but we aren't here to create hagiographies, so we can't whitewash it away. So I'll ask again, do you have any policy based objection? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Your addition seems to be pov. And the lead section must be concise. You cannot use half of the article for the lead. Moreover, you are removing notable comments and adding non notable ones. How's that justified. Also why are you adding back content unrelated to the topic. A rape case in which the person is not involved, some travel information. What's all that?? Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Suneye1: you may discuss here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Br Ibrahim john, You just told Tayi Arajakate to not to discuss on your talk page and instead use the article's talk page and now you are pinging me here to discuss on another user's talk page. - SUN EYE 1 08:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, if by travel information you mean him studying at Rome or participating in the foundation of a new diocese in UK, both of which is covered by reliable sources then that's what it is, in the same vein they cover his involvement as someone who took the victim's testimony in a high profile rape case and then got questioned for it over inaction, which receives mention in the article. I have also used the entirety of the article in the lead, if anything I tilted more towards the uncontroversial part of his coverage including his appointment and recognition as a scholar in the church, i.e the entire first paragraph. So I'll ask you to specify which policy you're referring to and how it applies? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. It's always better to use the article talk. However, since I am explaining here with Tayi Arajakate, I wished that you be discussing here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That's wrong. This bishop is not involved in any rape case. Moreover, the visit to UK is not significant. It is basically unrelated to the topic. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Br Ibrahim john, The article doesn't say the bishop was "involved" in the rape case. - SUN EYE 1 09:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

None of that is unsourced or poorly sourced. - SUN EYE 1 09:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

//BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.// Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john can you demonstrate what is unsourced or poorly sourced? I assume that's what you meant by this copy paste of the policy on BLP. The bishop's visit and participation in the UK diocese and his involvement in the case as a church authority and as a witness is both covered by reliable sources and hence reflected as such in the article. Can you be more coherent about your objection? It doesn't explain much of your rollback anyways or why you yourself have introduced unsourced material. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will explain in detail. Content that I removed from lead section:

• //Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church//

--->This information is wrong. There is no case against him. And there are no explicit and direct allegations.

• //providing sops to influence Syro-Malabar Christian women to have four or more children and promoting conspiracy theories such as "love jihad" and "narcotics jihad". He has also been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government.//

---> This is clear pov. It is an opinion without proof.

• //On 28 August 2016, Kallarangatt was sent to Preston, United Kingdom along with Cardinal and Major Archbishop George Alencherry, the head of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church to adorne Joseph Srampickal with the insignia of Episcopacy. Srampickal, a priest from Palai was appointed by Pope Francis as the bishop-elect to the newly founded diocese of the Syro-Malabar Church in the United Kingdom. He was also designated to act as the co-celebrant along with former Archbishop Powathil for the ordination ceremony of Thomas Tharayil's appointment as the auxiliary bishop to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Archeparchy of Changanacherry. The ceremony was held on 23 April 2017 and presided over by the Archbishop of Changanacherry, Joseph Perumthottam who acted as the principal celebrant.//

--->These are not related to the person. There are can be much more sources saying he celebrated rituals and inaugurated this and that, but fails notability.

• The following section is sourced however, it is not related to the person.

//In early September 2018, the Church became the subject of a major controversy after a group of nuns led protests over inaction against Bishop Franco Mulakkal, accused of having raped and sexually exploited a nun multiple times over a period of 2 years. The nun was complaining to various authorities in the Church hierarchy since 2017 but it had elicited no response. She eventually lodged a police complaint against Mulakkal on 28 June 2018, the protesting nuns stated that Mulakkal had powerful supporters within the Church.//---> Must be removed. Because it is not related to the person. The Church involved is not his Church and the people involved have no relationship with him.

• Another serious problem with your edits is the persistent removal of the Church head's reaction and addition of some nuns' comments, which fails notability criteria.

• //The Catholic oriented Joint Christian Council (JCC) and the Kerala Catholic Reformation Movement (KCRM) criticised Kallarangatt on similar lines, raising concerns that the controversy was purposeful to distract from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church's top leadership and created to forge an alliance with the Sangh Parivar in exchange for warding off investigations from agencies of the Narendra Modi government//--->

Who told you that these organisations are 'Catholic oriented'??

• //It was criticised for ignoring large population boom in India and for going against the existent two-child norm in Kerala, the critics from within the Syro-Malabar community described it as an unethical and immoral scheme created for petty political gains and as interference in the sexual lives of married couples by unmarried clergy.// These are weasel words. Clearly Wikepedia saying its own opinion. Must be replaced with explicit mentioning of the 'who said what and when'.

• //The Hindutva proponent right wing Bharatiya Janata Party // What's that? Again pov. BJP is a political party and it is its definition, not 'The Hindutva proponent right wing'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating, let me address these point by point now.

• The line doesn't state that there is a case against him but the existence of an accusation of negligence, supported by an in-depth piece of The Caravan where he is explicitly named as the first church authority the victimised nun had complained to and followed by inaction, leading to protests by nuns against the church with that accusation. It is also supported by the article of The Hindu which is about him getting questioned by the police for it. Both of these are present in the article body.
• The first line is just plain facts, which is very easily sourceable to this and this, among a plethora of other. The second is a significant accusation which is cited in the body of the article as well, sure it's an opinion and has been represented as such.
• These are major ceremonies and is covered by multiple reliable sources, if there are other similar ceremonies that too have recieved coverage in reliable sources then they should be included as well. You clearly don't understand what notability is, which refers to "a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article."
• This is already addressed in the first point. The quoted lines in specific add context and is followed up by lines regarding Kallarangatt's part in the controversy, reflecting the Caravan piece itself. Are you claiming that it's sourced for these lines but not for the succeeding lines when both use the same source?
• His supporters and their responses from within and outside the Church are both included, i.e the Archbishop, the Church newspaper, the Bishop's Council, KC(M) and the BJP. His and his diocese's responses are included as well. Can you specify what exactly you are referring to?
• The News Minute piece did, it also seems rather self evident for the latter organisation.
• Clearly you don't understand weasel words either, the lines contain criticism of the scheme, are refered to as such and is preceded and followed by lines which mention his own justification and Church's support for it respectively. So do you want to remove the criticism but preserve the justification and support for it?
• These are very easily sourceable adjectives for the party that specifies its ideology and ideological orientation respectively.

From what I'm gathering from this is that you mostly want to remove sourced criticism but preserve the positive coverage and support for him, his statements and his actions? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Your explanations are not reasonable. First of all Caravan doesn't explicitly say that the bishop was involved in covering up of the allegation. Even the involved persons haven't said that he did cover-up. Also it is important for the reader to understand how rational is such an allegation. The bishop belongs to Syro-Malabar Church. Meanwhile, the nuns and the accused bishop are members of the Latin Catholic Church. Therefore Kallarangatt has no role in all these. He cannot do anything. Moreover, it's not a proven fact. All other content that you are adding are claims. There is no proof for any of those. Just because he spoke something, Wikepedia cannot forge a relationship between him and the right wing. There should be evidence. What you have added are not reliable sources. Those are basically editorials or articles in various newspapers which are clearly pov. It must not be mentioned in the lead. If you want to add that in the body, you should say that which newspaper and explicitly add the quotation or 'claimed'. Otherwise it must be removed. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, it's not our job to find evidence, that would constitute original research and the newspapers are reliable sources. The article also does not state that he is responsible just that these accusations exist, and none of the articles are editorials, they document accusations from various parties which are represented as such, and responses and support from others which are also presented in the article. The prominence they receive in the article reflects their prominence in the sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also Franco Mulakkal does belong to the Syro-Malabar Church which you seem to have edited out yourself contrary to the sources on his article in Special:Diff/1038626394. This is not even relevant per se as your arguement that he is from a different Church (which isn't even true) as a refutation to the newspapers is just original research. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Avoid vandalism

Avoid vandalism as you did here by removing stable properly sourced content at page The Wire(India)DavidWood11 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:The Sopranos on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Telangana Rebellion

The article Telangana Rebellion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Telangana Rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts in Telangana Rebellion

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Tayi Arajakate, I commend for your extraordinary efforts in improving and transitioning Telangana Rebellion into a good article :) — DaxServer (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

— DaxServer (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hai Tayi Arajakate, I'm currently carrying out suggestions provided by you on HAL Tejas article, one of your observation was over-reliance on primary sources, my doubt is —https://web.archive.org/web/20131017225533/http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page01.html is this site comes under WP:PRIMARY? can I retain it for historical part of the article? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, hello again and happy to hear that you are working on the article. Regarding your question, it is a primary sources since it's a feature published by HAL and written by their former chairman but I would also say that it can be used as long as in text attribution is provided. Having some relevant primary sources isn't usually a big issue as long as the article isn't over-reliant on them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Telangana Rebellion

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Telangana Rebellion has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I am impressed that reviewer Catlemur spent so much time on this article and did not Quick Fail it immediately as most GA reviewers would have done. For the massive amounts of work he did on the article, he deserves your gratitude and thanks. I may have missed the odd thing, but from a grammatical standpoint the article now meets GA requirements.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Recent RSN Close

Hello,

In your recent close of the RAN thread regarding ASPI, you marked it as “additional considerations apply.” In general, it looks like RSP treats sources that generally reliable within their field of expertise and should be accompanied with in-text attribution as option 1 (WP:GREL) rather than option 2 (WP:MREL) in their listing (see the Radio Free Asia listing, for example). Would you be willing to modify your close to clarify what it should be listed as?

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same, RFA (RSP entry) suggests that attribution may be necessary (which is a general consideration for any source per WP:RS) while most participants in the ASPI RfC state that attribution is necessary which is similar to Center for Economic and Policy Research (RSP entry). I think "additional considerations apply" is an accurate summarisation of the consensus, Option 2 in the listing usually includes a wide variety of considerations and recommendations, which varies depending on the source and ranges from everything that is close to a generally reliable source which is unambiguously usable (where one can mostly default to the RS guideline for how it should be used) to those close to generally unreliable sources which should not be used at all outside exceptional circumstances. Since one is applying a consideration in this case, i.e attribution as the default, it is close to generally reliable but not unambiguously so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair, though when read in light of WP:BIASED, I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that for all sources that should generally be accompanied by in-text attribution, that we should classify them as WP:MREL? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Note that ASPI has a specified area of reliability beyond which it will need case by case consideration to assess whether it is reliable, since most editors qualified their assessment as "ASPI being reliable in its area of expertise" but without commenting on anything beyond it. It ultimately depends on how a source is treated at the board. From what I understand, if the consensus deviates enough from what WP:BIASED states (suggesting consideration of including attribution as opposed to recommending attribution) and if a source itself is advocacy oriented (as opposed to a source simply having a particular bias, which imo every source has in some form) then it is usually listed under WP:MREL/"additional consideration" as people tilt more towards Option 2. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend note that WP:GREL means that a source is Generally reliable in its areas of expertise? If we define the area of expertise as strategic policy (which it seems like most did). Horse Eye's Back !voted option 2 while acknowledging the source's general reliability within strategic policy, for example, and this seems to be typical of most of the "Option 2" !votes (David Gerard had an objection to its use on crypto, which I think is outside its area of expertise, so I'll ping him to make sure I'm not misconstruing him in my reading of the discussion). Am I correct to read your close that there was a consensus that (a) it's reliable and should be attributed within the area of defence and strategic issues and (b) should be handled case-by-case outside of its areas of expertise? This seems to have been the result of the discussion in my reading of it.

I'm also unsure exactly how this close would apply, for example, for their reporting on what Horse Eye's Back describes as info-pacific happenings. There seems to have been a good bit of discussion regarding the source's worth with respect to Xinjiang: is there any consensus that you saw with respect to its work on that topic specifically? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The legend seems to use that specific wording yes, but as far as the comments go there is an implication that the area itself is limited compared to their range of publication, which generally isn't the case. Regarding your question, "Am I correct to read your close that there was a consensus that (a) it's reliable and should be attributed within the area of defence and strategic issues and (b) should be handled case-by-case outside of its areas of expertise?" Yes, with the caveat that caution with respect to due weight, balance, etc is still advised in area (a), keeping in mind that it's an advocacy group and that in the case of area (b), it may or may not be reliable.

Indo-pacific geopolitics would fall well within the scope of strategic issues assuming that's what's meant by "happenings", and crypto is well outside its scope (also on a sidenote the example provided by David Gerald has issues with lack of independence as well). Regarding Xinjiang in specific, I don't per se see a consensus in that discussion itself. There are three people who mentioned the Xinjiang internment camp–Uighur genocide topic area and there is a very strong case for inclusion of ASPI's coverage in that area in particular but others recommend caution with regards to their coverage of China in general due to the tense relationship that Australia and China have, both the points are uncontested in the discussion.

If I had to gather something from that, I would state that if multiple reliable news publications are referring to their coverage on a particular China related topic, there is due weight for inclusion for that topic but if they aren't, there may not be due weight. The specifics would still need to be discussed at the talk pages of relevant articles. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the "areas of expertise" should be amended to explicitly include China and/or Xinjiang. Its reliability in that area was actually demonstrated via strong WP:USEBYOTHERS arguments (e.g. I listed several extremely high-quality WP:RS relying on their research in that area), while comments to the contrary were unsupported statements of opinion. GretLomborg (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there was enough discussion on the area around Xinjiang for me to amend the close in that manner. The people arguing for caution did provide some evidence for doubts through examples and secondary coverage of ASPI. One can also quite easily use them in the topic area by directly citing the high quality sources themselves. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What would have been enough discussion? Their work on Xinjiang came up several times (myself, Mikehawk10, and Dr. Swag Lord brought it up directly; Horse Eye's Back brought it up indirectly as "they are reliable within their field of expertise (geopolitics, security, info-pacific happenings)"), and no in the discussion actually challenged the factual accuracy of their Xinjiang reports. There were a lot of vague accusations of bias, but that's different than factual accuracy, which is the main issue here. GretLomborg (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be more than 3 comments in a discussion with 15 participants, and "geopolitics, security, indo-pacific happenings" being an indirect mention of Xinjiang internment camps is quite a hard stretch. Yes, no one did challenge the factual accuracy of ASPI's reports on Xinjiang, but most people did not address it at all. This isn't surprising since the discussion was about ASPI in general rather than their coverage of a very specific topic area. There was also an almost unanimous agreement on bias and a general consensus for a degree of caution, so they can't just be dismissed out of hand. They had accompanying arguments such as ASPI's publications being primarily opinion or it having a lack of independence and the like, which makes it not very easy to separate from a question on "factual accuracy".

Can I ask why ASPI in particular is so important for that topic area? It's not clear to me how it might have an adverse effect on the coverage of the Uighur genocide (that's the concern right?), I assume one can find ample peer reviewed publications on it, not to mention the plethora of international news publications which have reported on it, including the ones that cover ASPI's report. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"This isn't surprising since the discussion was about ASPI in general rather than their coverage of a very specific topic area.": that's actually why I think the close message should be amended: the discussion was about the source in-general, but the close message listed specific topic areas that doesn't include the one area where the source has been shown to be the most reliable (via WP:USEBYOTHERS in an a wide number of the highest-quality WP:RS) and where there's the most general interest in what it says. I certainly would have been more specific and forceful in my comments if I had known the discussion would have been read that way. If you don't want to specifically include Xinjiang, I'd be fine if "...is reliable in its area of expertise (defence and strategic issues) but..." was changed to something like "...is reliable for facts in its areas of expertise (defence and strategic issues) but...". Xinjiang is the topic area that actually received the most comments in the discussion (all positive and undisputed) and even the most critical people typically acknowledged the source's reliability for facts (e.g. "it is probably quite rigorous", "are generally at least factual"). IMHO it's too much of a stretch to read the camps and associated policies into "defence and strategic issues," because that's arguably Chinese domestic policy, not something the Australian military would ever intersect with, and that language kind of came out of nowhere without discussion and doesn't actually reflect the discussion we had.

"They had accompanying arguments such as ASPI's publications being primarily opinion or it having a lack of independence and the like, which makes it not very easy to separate from a question on "factual accuracy"." I think that's pretty easy to separate. They certainly put out stuff that's primarily factual (e.g. the reports cited by the news articles I linked), and most of the arguments against their independence were specious or unsupported (if funding sources mattered that much, we'd have to say the BBC was not independent of the British government, and despite being at the time entirely funded by the pro-Iraq war Australian government, the ASPI took a different position without issue [26], which is a demonstration of independence, not the lack of it). I think the situation is if the ASPI puts out a report that says there are N re-education camps in Xinjiang based on their own research and analysis (like they have [27]) or that China in engaging in a particular propaganda campaign [28], we have good reason to think that fact is reasonably factually accurate based on what could be known at the time and not something fabricated to support an agenda. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sudha Bharadwaj

I don't have strong opinions on the information about her arrest and imprisonment. It is possible to write something within BLP about it, the Washington Post wrote an article about it, but in all the article was more or less a mess when I found it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that it was a mess, I had plans for revamping it but forgot about it till the page protection came up on my watchlist. I don't disagree that it is possible to write something on her arrest and imprisonment. It should be present in a developed article, my only issue was that when the article is stubified to 4 sentences, 2 of them shouldn't be about it, devoid of all context. I do plan on getting back on expanding it when I get the time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)This article merits some time - ample information out in the interweb to get a GA. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kathleen Stock on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Republic World

Why are you removing Republic World sources from the many articles ?? It is not applicable source?? Sush150 (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's a deprecated source and should generally not be used anywhere other than for uncontroversial descriptions of itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

An article for improvement

Maybe, you can take some time out to improve Fake news in India? I was going through recent works of Badrinathan et al - there are dozens of high quality publications in the area. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll do it, I've couple other things mind as well, which I'm slowly trying to go through. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Network18 Group

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Network18 Group you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Network18 Group

The article Network18 Group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Network18 Group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hrithik Roshan Edit

Hi Tayi Please note that the sources referenced was from Reputed Newspapers. I did refer the wikipedia link for referencing for beginners provided that other reliable sources include university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Please do refer the below refrenced link for the hirthik roshan edit made,

1.https://m.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/hollywood-news/k-pop-band-bts-v-beats-hrithik-roshan-robert-pattinson-as-most-handsome-man-2021.html 2. https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/thetealmango-announced-top-7-most-handsome-men-in-the-world-in-2021/742423/

In case there seems to be an mistake from my side please do reply for the same.

Thank you Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Pranesh Ravikumar, not every website (i.e, Teal Mango in this case) which makes a list of "most handsome men" needs to be included, especially in the lead. There are dime a dozen such lists and it's not something encyclopedic to include. Also, the two links you have provided are either not reliable or not independent. The first one is a deprecated source and the second one is marked as a press release. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anti-Palestinianism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing

I only added the correct date, because there exist a confusion when somebody looking to the page, so rectified it. Don't do anymore edit please AKS329 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

AKS329, that's not how this works. You should familiarise yourself with our guidelines on no original research. When, the inconsistency exists in the sources themselves then it should be reflected in the articles as well, you can't pick and choose which one you might think is correct. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

On reversion of an edit that i made

I added some information in the article on Munawwar Rana.It was my first edit.I don't understand why you found it unconstructive.I just added some information in encyclopedic style with reference.Please,let me know how to improve myself as an editor. Chetan404 (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Chetan404, well, for a start you can read the policy at WP:BLP. You should not be reproducing allegations from the UP Police as if they were facts, especially when it is not even about the subject of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hindu page edit

Hi there, Would love to know why was my update reversed despite having two sources as reference? (One from Newslaundry and Hillpost). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che2021 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Che2021, because the two source are not reliable, Hillpost.in is a blog and the Newslaundry piece is clearly marked as an opinion which can not be used for facts. You need much stronger sourcing for the additions you want to make, preferably scholarly sources for a newspaper like The Hindu. Also you are misrepresenting a source on The Caravan, please do not do this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Caravan page Controversies

It seem you have removed my sentence once again under "undue commentary". Could you help me frame the right way of commentary so that I can add under controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che2021 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be a better idea to just read WP:UNDUE. I don't think the material you want to add has enough weight for inclusion and certainly not without being contextualised. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate - as I see the media, The Caravan is not short of controversies. There are many strong source available that can be included, as the inclusion of designing the page is primarily the users prerogative. I am taking up this issue with Wiki higher ups shortly. Thanks.

January 2022 Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Question

Happy New Year Tayi.

Have a question about self published source below: Hiro G. Badlani (2008), Hinduism: a path of ancient wisdom, ISBN 978-0595436361, pp. 315–318

This source is published by self service publisher iUniverse which is used on article Seva (Indian religions) but the editor who added it stated that "WP:USESPS clearly states that 'self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable" '." What are you thoughts on it? MehmoodS (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, MehmoodS!

I'd just say that the editor has either not read WP:USESPS or doesn't understand it. That line exists because there are some cases where an SPS can be used but the burden to show that it can be used rests on them. The cases being where it is used to support uncontroversial self descriptions in the form of a primary source or where the SPS is authored by a subject matter expert, even then they have to be used with care. In this case, it's neither. Hiro G. Badlani, according to his Amazon profile, is a ophthalmologist who has written a bunch of self published books on Hinduism so he doesn't qualify as an SME. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion needed

One of the user "Crashed greek" is being disruptive with edits. He keeps readding citations that have been considered unreliable. Article [29], under section "Others" shows that author Jeneet Sorokhaibam is not reliable. This is what it says:

Chhatrapati Shivaji: The Maratha Warrior and His Campaign by Jeneet Sorokhaibam (Vij Books, 2013)For example, see page 139: "Afzal Khan felt that the ensuing battle..." Copied from the 2012 version of the Wikipedia article on Afzal Khan (general).

Also author Abhas Verma is not reliable as he has no professional expertise in the area and is writer by choice and works in IT company in Bangalore. Also the writer is a regular user on quora as well and a blogger. Here is his profile, [30]

Therefore, more accurate information from academic scholars/historians with citations were added, to replace the unreliable sources above. And this user Crashed greek, without any discussion or reaching a concensus, reverts the changes and is being downright uncivil on the talk page of the article which you can checkout. Do you think that this article [31] should be disregarded as that is what this user is claiming as just an "essay"? What are your thoughts? I have also let an admin know to see if the change can be reverted with warning to user to reach a concensus before reverting. MehmoodS (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, that is a list of sources that fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be used, its basis is in the policy on verifiability so no that should not be disregarded. I'd suggest that for the time being, you could try explaining it to them, bring it up on WP:RSN if you think necessary and if they continue this behaviour, file a report at WP:ANI (or WP:AE which might be more appropriate here) focusing on the conduct issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tayi ArajakateThanks a bunch for providing this information. As adamant as this user is, I don't think he will try to reach a consensus. But I mentioned in the talk page of the article about the information you gave. I also proposed to keep his disputed sources for the time being since I will myself follow up on WP:RSN to get decision. This is the route this user should have taken even after I told him earlier but he is neglecting it. Oh well Tayi, once again, thanks a lot for all the help you have provided especially with some great information which I have gotten educated on now. MehmoodS (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate is there a specific timeline on how long you have to wait to consider the concensus as final on WP:RSN? MehmoodS (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

also can the person involved in the dispute, vote as well? Because the editor I had dispute with, added his vote which ofcourse would be opposing. MehmoodS (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, they are free to express their opinion but consensus is not determined by a vote and instead by discussion. So if they can't say anything substantive, then their "oppose" is meaningless. There is also no specific time limit, just till the discussion stops getting any more attention and/or till it is removed by a bot and placed in an archive. On a sidenote, I know it can feel frustrating but please don't keep reverting, it doesn't make you look good either and people don't like reading walls of text so try to keep your complaints concise. From what I can see in the RSN thread, its pretty clear this is a plainly unreliable source, just have some patience. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you for providing knowledge and guidance

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for providing repeated knowledge and guidance as well as help locate valuable resources and information. MehmoodS (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Prannoy Roy biography

Hello. I saw that you reverted one of the edits to the biography of Prannoy Roy where the affiliation of Radhika Roy to Brinda Karat was mentioned saying it was "plainly undue". However, this is a very important relationship that is missing from the biography which I have now added to the Personal Life section of Prannoy Roy. Otherwise the biography would be concealing important political ties. Would love to hear your thoughts. Cheers Bushleder (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bushleder, do you have reliable sources that charecterise it as a "very important relationship" or an "important political tie"? If not then that's just your opinion and the inclusion would be undue. By the way, please use sources for anything you add and when your edits are disputed follow WP:BRD. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading warnings and messages

The wording used by me was specifically to modify the article to align with the majority of what WP:RS are referring to. From the reports cited in the article, QZ calls it "apparently"- Which also means the same thing (From Cambridge dictionary,"used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true/used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain"). Le Monde does the same in French. Bloombergg uses "Reportedly".Newsclick uses "allegedly". The Wire is WP:PRIMARY. And apart from the sources discussed, there is no other article about the actual app- Rest are about reactions to the report. In light of this, I had suitably modified the article to reflect that most WP:RS were terming it an allegation, unlike the article which implied it was a matter of fact.

Now I would ask you if you can stop leaving misleading warnings like you did on my talk page[32] and also stop leaving misleading messages like you did on the article talk page[33] by falsely claiming that "Going through the sections above, I can see that it's only you who is advocating for these changes," when multiple editors agreed.

Your misconduct is clear-cut so consider this to be an actual 'warning' than the superficial ones you are leaving. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You can provide your arguments at the talk page of the article, I gave you the warning because you claimed that there was a consensus for your changes in Special:Diff/1066320740 (corresponding to this section where you are the only one advocating for it) when there was none. The fact that you are trying to argue in their favor here is evidence to that as well and feel free to report any "misconduct" on my part, I'm sure you know how to do that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When the concerned editor has made it clear that their only issue was with the use of NPOV tag for the article, and has asked me to go ahead and edit the article, it would be reasonable to assume that they intend for me to actually edit the article. Then Kautilya3 had also posted on other user's talk page that "The Wire did an investigation and reported the findings. So it is a WP:PRIMARY source for us." This is why I thought there is enough "consensus" to ultimately modify the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

They just said that you are free to edit which you are and if reverted, come to discuss it on the talk page which is in line with WP:BRD but you can't use that to claim (as you did at Special:Diff/1066323106) that there is consensus for it and therefore no one should revert before discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Australian federal election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots (2nd nomination)

FYI. Sourcing is the question. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) huh?TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

um.. okay? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Latifah on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222 Online events: New: Black women | Hong Kong and Macau | Women in sport Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request AfD's

Hey, you found some good sources in the Siti network article. Can you check these articles too?

• You Scod18
• BHB Cable TV
• Asianet Satellite Communications
• Kerala Vision Greatder (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Moderna on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225 Online events: New: Women's History Month Art+Activism | Feminism and Folklore | Dutch Caribbean Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Women in sport (Feb/Mar) Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

India that is Bharat

Is the book notable? I have removed 2 sources/reviews. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be so though the author might be able to meet WP:BASIC. The removal of sources looks alright to me, First Post used to be a decent source (at least they cared about basic fact checking) till the Network18 takeover when their whole topline was fired and perhaps was still marginally reliable till 2018. Stand Point India is an obscure site and appears to be trying to sell the book, doubt it's even independent.

Searching for other coverage, there are reviews in sources like OpIndia, Swarajya, etc and a lot of promotion but other than the Business Line article and a Financial Express interview, I don't see any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Interviews aren't independent so its just one article which is insufficient anyways, though if I was being honest I doubt the independence of the Business Line article as well, it looks very sloppy, doesn't appear to name the reviewer (at present) and is mostly filled with quotes from the author.

The phrase "India, that is Bharat" is generally associated with the Constitution and is likely itself notable (for instance see here). I'll just redirect it to Constitution of India, if an article on the book has to exist, it should be exist under an article name like "India that is Bharat (book)" otherwise this is too promotional. Thanks for bringing it up. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Tek Fog

A user you have a problem with has made 23 edits to the article on Tek Fog and 43 edits to the talk page.

I was notified by Wikipedia that you have made a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CapnJackSp. I have some comments on your report. I hope that these comments will lead you to make changes to your report:

• Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it.
  • This section is good at saying which of the 23 edits that were made violate this sanction or remedy. At times it is verbose.
  • The explanation how these edits violate it appears to be missing. Requested action - add the missing explanation
• Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • This section contains more accusations, for example: (a) trying to skim off content, (b) introduce expressions of doubt (c) badger people on the talk page (d) there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in. Requested action - add a two or three diffs for each of these

By the way, I do not understand why the unwarranted POV introduction of doubt^[34] was acceptable. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback though I don't think I should make changes to my report since its already been replied to, so I've added an additional comment instead with the requested action in mind. I know the report was verbose but the case is not straight forward and needed more elaborate explanations for each diff. This is the best I could do, now its up to the admins.

By the way, the POV introduction of doubt wasn't accepted, I had reverted it. It led to a very convoluted discussion on the talk page which honestly wasn't necessary. The general state of the article is poor and needs a genuine rework, which makes this kind of thing easier to carry out under the guise of "fixing issues". Add a bunch of copyediting, insert your pov in between, hope no one notices and if someone does, misdirect the arguement towards something else, voila. I'd re-write the article but I lack both the time and the motivation to do it right now. It's also a fairly new revelation so I'm waiting for more information to emerge. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Discuss before reverting. Your edits are against Wikipedia guidelines.Krish | Talk To Me 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Krish!, you need to do a better job than that in explaining what your problem with my edits is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a huge copy edit while you reverted my edit and I lost my data. Anyways, I have written over 40 GA/FA film content and your rude behaviour towards me tells your intention. That is not how reception and film articles are written by removing positive reviews, adding negative reviews from Non-RS like Pinkvilla and from same publication just because it's more negative.Krish | Talk To Me 12:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Krish! Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks or your number GAs and whatever don't help your case. I haven't been rude to you, can't say the same about you. Pinkvilla isn't a non-RS (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources) and was already present in the article. I had removed content farms like Koimoi and aggregators like Rediff, which you have restored. The onus for inclusion is on you. The article is bloated with positive reviews from marginal sources such as the above which contradicts RS that state that reviews in general have been mixed. Moreover it misrepresents negative reviews (such as the Indian Express one) by cherrypicking a lone positive sentence from it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So we were told against to use Pinkivilla articles but anyways, let me describe in a better way, I had removed Non-RS such as Latestly that was used t give a summary of "positive review". Also, what's its overall reception is not decided by you or me. We either use an aggregate review roundup or RT score which is not present in this case. Hence, I removed the unsourced consensus which is encouraged in those cases for film articles. Also, I had added balance by adding negative lines from those "positive reviews" and had done the same for others and was going to publish but you reverted me and I lost my data. Also, we don't start from the most negative review that there is to start the reception section. We go from good to mixed to bad and that's what I did. And my lost version was that. Knowingly adding negative reviews first and keeping positive ones out or below is not FAIR.Krish | Talk To Me 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Responded on Talk:The Kashmir Files since there are others in the discussion as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yograj Singh Section under The Kashmir FIles

Hi, The Citation you quoted on the The Kashmir Files is contradictory to the statement made in the Article. Can you please correct it? It is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH in it's current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I have checked it again, the sentence is verified from the citation which states "...Yograj Singh, was a part of the film. However, now we hear that he has been removed from the film after his speech at farmer’s protest..." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Why would you selectively ignore the part that the speech was abusive and derisive towards women. I think that is the reason. Do You want make it sound like he was sacked for a harmless speech. Sounds like a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The speech being "abusive to women" is Agnihotri's claim, which he later changed to it being "anti-Hindu", we can't make claims like this particularly for BLPs when no secondary source describes it as such in its own voice. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there

Why did you revert my copyedits on The Kashmir Files? Was it by mistake? Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that was a mistake. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Remember Lekin... which you gave such a nice GA review for? It's in today's DYK list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Congrats on getting it through DYK! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files overview

Hello - For the section in Intro "It has been accused by film critics of being a work". This is in conflict with what the "Reception" section states. For balance it should be like "The film received mixed reviews, with some film critics accusing it of...."Bbc2222 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)BBC2222

Any statement in the intro indicating that there is a consenus among critics on historical revisionism, prejudice, etc. would be incorrect. You need to specify it is only "some" critics. Bbc2222 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Bbc2222

It might be a better idea if you raise these concerns on the talk page of the article. Though I should say using terms like "some" would be a vague attribution that's inappropriate when there are numerous strong secondary sources for it. The reception section is going to need an update soon, btw. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a society topic now

Given today's news:

• https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi-on-the-kashmir-files-movie-those-who-tried-to-hide-the-truth-are-opposing-it-2823654
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-60732939

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Syntax

Nice, your expansion undid major part of my recent edit. I am curious to know that why do you prefer writing {Cite news} as {cite news}, etc. and using spaces between the arguments of these templates? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, must have edit conflicted. I don't have a preference for {cite news}, I drafted it on visual editor which makes those syntax changes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pinned threads

Hello, There has recently been an edit-war on the pinning/ removal of pins for threads in the talk page of The Kashmir Files. An administrator directly advised to not remove the pins and leave such management to admins. I am going to accordingly revert your pin removal; also considering that discussion on the Historical Accuracy section of the article is still ongoing in the talk page. Thanks Wikihc (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi: FYI. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:College of Policing on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rod Steiger on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 at Women in Red

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question

Tayi Arajakate need your opinion. Here is a source [35] which is 3rd edition published in 1978. Second edition was published in 1952 and first edition was published in 1937. 2nd and 3rd edition of the book had some changes such as removal of some pages, addition of new chapters and correction of errors (author mentions pages with updates in first few pages). So do you think that within citation template, along with the regular publication date of 1978 of 3rd edition, an original publication date (orig-date) of 1937 should also be included? Because majority of the book regardless of some changes in later editions, still forwards from the very first edition. Also the pages that are cited on the article were not even part of the changes in 2nd or 3rd edition, but continuation of original work from 1st edition. So what is your thought on it? Should orig-date be kept or removed?
Gupta, Hari Ram (1978) [1937]. History of the Sikhs: Evolution of Sikh Confederacies (1707-1769) (3rd ed.). Munshiram Motilal Publishers. pp. 19–21. ISBN 978-8121502481. MehmoodS (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, I'd be somewhat vary of using it. There should be more recent works on this topic, but it ultimately depends on what you're citing it for. If there is a discrepancy between this source and more recent academic publications then preference should be given the latter and the former can be omitted. That said, I wouldn't go out of my way to remove it from where-ever it is being used, an updated edition of a serious academic work from 1978 even if the first edition was published in 1937 would at least attempt to be in line with the mainstream of its time. Just try ensuring whatever it is being sourced for is in line with the present academic consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Many GAN reviews

Hi Tayi Arajakate! I noticed that you started quite a number of GAN reviews a week ago—including two of mine—but haven't made any progress that I can see. When do you plan to start leaving comments for these? — Bilorv (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Tayi, if you feel burdened, I can take The Bear, Oxford - a place of interest to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, sorry about the delay, I became unexpectedly busy but I'll have time in hand from this weekend onwards and plan on finishing the initial review for them within the next 7 days. If you want, I can take a look at your nominations earlier.

TrangaBellam, feel free to take it. I don't feel particularly burdened but it would probably be better for the nominator. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Tayi. Don't take this as a request for me to skip the queue—I just wanted an indication that you did plan to complete these. — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 3 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:In the End on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Bangalore GA Review

Hello, and hope you are doing well. It has been nearly a month since you picked up the Bangalore GA review. When will you be starting it? Thanks, Kpddg ^(talk) 12:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, will you be continuing the review? If you are busy, I will request a second opinion.... Kpddg ^(talk) 10:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Women in Green - July GA Editathon

Hello Tayi Arajakate:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in July 2022!

Running from July 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women and the environment. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works during the event period (with an emphasis on environmental links and topics). GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Greenland and the Faroes | Women in music Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (third and last month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Oath Keepers on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Melina Abdullah

Thought you should know that you were reverted on this article with an edit you had made removing content with reference concerns, I became aware of the editor through an obvious POV edit on Louis Farrakhan and noticed they had made edits related to him on that article also. You are evidently more informed than me on this article, so you are better equipped to handle it if it is needed. TylerBurden (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Canada on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barbie (media franchise) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239 Online events: New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jerusalem on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Aug 2022

Hello, which edit are you talking about? I tried to add citations to all, may be missed in one. Thanks ~~~~ Aisheee (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC) If it is about mixed reviews of Dobaara, I have added a citation now but there was no need. You just had to reach the "critical reception" section on the same page. There were already around 10 reviews some of them positive and some negative--> mixed. Aisheee (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Please could you contribute to Talk:NDTV#Biasness for obvious reasons.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Draftification

Hello, Tayi Arajakate,

You recently moved Narendra Mohan (poet) to Draft space. A recent proposal at the Village Pump held that only recently created articles should be draftified, "recent" meaning 3-6 months old (or newer). This article was created in 2008 so it shouldn't have been moved to Draft space and it has been moved back. If you think an article is inadequate, please try improving it yourself or use one of the standard methods (CSD, PROD, AFD) to tag the article for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz, thanks though I already know this, the editor who moved it back pinged me and linked the proposal in the edit summary. I would have opposed it if I was aware of it at that time but oh well. Anyways I've already done some basic clean up, take a look at what state the article was in before that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ravikumar's response to Special:Diff/1107357705

Copypaste of Special:Diff/1107357705
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Premiership of Narendra Modi, you may be blocked from editing. In addition "warnings" such as the one in Special:Diff/1107099569 indicate battleground behavior. This is at the very best a content dispute, don't try to intimidate new users who are following guidelines.

You should not leave spurious warning on talk page, nor you should WP:WIKIHOUND me elsewhere.[36]

WP:RGW means bringing up exceptional (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) claims without using qualifying sources for promoting a non-mainstream view or the view which is likely wrong. Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources who are experts in legal matters instead of using poor quality sources (who have [[conflict of interest) and news sources written by normal journalists.

If you are just going to rely on rumors floated by opposition parties and those who have conflict of interest, then you should learn that the opposition of Congress also accused it of misusing CBI, NIA, etc. when they were in power.[37][38]

Use talk page and better come up with peer-reviewed scholarly sources who are expert in legal matters instead of edit warring. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo - Who claimed that and where? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/1107356927, I was informing Libreravi (who is relatively new here and could be misled) that your accusations on them are frivolous and you are misrepresenting policy, just as your accusations here are such as that of "hounding". And if my one revert is "edit warring", what do we call your multiple reverts? In fact you're misrepresenting the addition (Special:Diff/1107356849) itself so let's address that.

Firstly regarding, "[C]laims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo ..." The addition says nothing about any gestapo and what it does say is entirely supported by the citations. The Modi government's use of state agencies against opposition parties and activists is a fact that is widely supported in mainstream HQRS; where it's journalistic sources (which are perfectly acceptable per WP:NEWSORG), or peer reviewed scholarly sources.

There are already cites to the The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Telegraph and The Wire which are some of the few remaining quality journalistic sources in India. Then we can add stuff like articles from subject matter experts, then we can also take say a Taylor & Francis published journal extract which states (pp. 144-145), "... Besides IT-related cases, the government did not hesitate to put opposition leaders under house arrest to prevent them from canvassing or taking part in protest movements ... Charges against these opposition leaders vanished the moment they agreed to join the BJP. The TDP minister, Y.S. Chowdhary is an example: the CBI, the ED and the IT Department conducted raids against him during the election campaign, but all cases were suspended the moment he joined the BJP ...", etc etc. Just a small snippet.

Regarding, "[I]f you are just going to rely on rumors floated by opposition parties..." Once again, you are misrepresenting the addition itself as it isn't based on "rumours" or claims from opposition parties, there is more than sufficient independent RS as already demonstrated above. Also the counter allegations by the BJP are irrelevant since as you already know claims of political parties are not RS.

In the end, what you are doing is completely transparent, you can think that the "the view is likely wrong" all you like but that doesn't change reality and Wikipedia isn't censored. I could provide mountains of sources for this if that's what you want, but will anything satisfy you? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to take a look at WP:REFACTOR and don't modify the message have done here by changing the meaning of my message.

The best source which you have provided is this, at least for the information it has provided but since this source does not specifically name any agency's "misuse" or "misuse of central agencies by Modi for political gains", we shouldn't be doing that either but note whatever it has said in this context.

I have rewritten the section now with this source. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your "rewriting" (Special:Diff/1107529784) has no resemblance to the actual source. For one, the source specifically mentions the names of agencies, in fact the the part I quoted itself contains those names. Then you're quoting lines which don't exist in it, even inventing comments from people who are not mentioned in it at all, overall engaging in minimisation, misdirection and blatant source misrepresentation. If you continue this you're most likely looking at a ban. SpacemanSpiff, can you take a look at this?

And the part of your comment that I refactored was my own comment that you had copy-pasted after removing my sign and without indicating that you are replying to it, that itself is misleading. I replaced it with a diff to my edit, that doesn't change the meaning. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You removed the warning I posted and only kept the message you felt was less offending for you. This is violation of WP:REFACTOR.[39] Either you can remove whole message or remove nothing.

You are doing nothing but misrepresenting sources. For example this mentioned that out of 16 raids in 6 months, one was a BJP leader contrary to text on Wikipedia. But you are claiming that no raids happened against BJP politicians.

Here you removed the content about Indira Gandhi when it is supported by Jaffrelot source, with a false edit summary that "rem source misrepresentation, whitewashing". It is verified by the publication and I even provided the direct quotation.

You also removed the sentence "During this crisis, BJP attempted to attract potentially... reacted as "no coincidence"" and made the entire mention of Rajasthan look irrrelevant or misplaced.

I had removed the sentence "many investigative agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the National Investigation Agency come under the Central government", because the sources make no mention of CBI and NIA. So why you are dragging them unnecessarily?[40][41]

If you are going to pick sides in this content dispute then you are exactly engaging in disruptive editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

[42] is the exact copy of [43] where I had linked one of your edits. Are you claiming that your comment is me being disruptive? If a retaliatory warning is what you were going for, at least get it right. Anyways since you are hung up on it, I have restored it under a hatnote.

Back to the actual matter, I had removed whatever I removed because it failed verification. But now I see that you were using a completely different source without citing it and citing a different one instead. Even if I overlook the cherrypicking going on here (the article is about Modi's premiership not Indira's in the 70s), among a host of other behavioral and content issues, your addition still turns out to be a direct copy paste from the source which makes it a copyright violation. It seems we have a significant CIR issue here on top of everything.

That said, regarding, "out of 16 raids in 6 months, one was a BJP leader", fair enough I've fixed that. But CBI, ED and NIA are all mentioned in some source or the other, that line is just a introduction for the unacquainted, though it could be better incorporated in the text instead of a standalone sentence. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Why the mention of Indira Gandhi needs to be removed when this has been mentioned by Christophe Jaffrelot in the same chapter for showing the pattern already seen in Indian politics? By saying "using the same technique", the author could be suggesting where BJP got its inspiration from. But with this misleading calculation of yours, we shouldn't be mentioning anything where Modi is not directly involved. It would be cherry picking not to mention Indira Gandhi. The author is explaining that this is not a new phenomenon but has been already seen before. You could object to the content only if the comparison wasn't made by a reliable source but that is not even the case. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, the article is about the Modi government which is directly involved and not about things that are tangentially related. She was name dropped in a single source and in a write up that spans over multiple pages, while you are trying to insert that in a 2 paragraph section that is supposed to be a general summary. This couldn't be more clearer. Please spare me these "no u" type of responses. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:VNOT wouldn't apply here because this is a better quality source than everything else available like I have already noted and it is not even alone with making this statement.[44] To claim that only a "single source" is making such a statement is misleading. This information about Indira Gandhi was a well known fact even before Modi became PM in 2014.[45] The content is not "tangentially related", but strongly related per the original wording of the source. Your only bet is to provide a reliable source which is refuting this statement. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

My best bet it seems is just to ignore the mental gymnastics you are performing to justify including it. It's irrelevant whether it was a well known fact or what sources mention is, all you did is bring up an additional op-ed and all any of the source say can only add to be something along the lines of "this has happened before".

In the end, the article is not about Indira Gandhi's premiership but that of Modi's hence it is very obviously inappropriate in such a sub-section that too as in the starting lines, a textbook example of where WP:VNOT would apply, it couldn't get simpler than that. You are free to include it in articles that are actually about Indira Gandhi. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The content is not about "Indira Gandhi's premiership", but "Modi's premiership" and when reliable sources are mentioning then you are required to find equally reliable sources and refute on that basis than wikilaywering. I have restored the sentence. I am sorry but you did not fulfill the said requirement I already mentioned. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have referred this section to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Pranesh Ravikumar. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pranesh Ravikumar The references cited in the Premiership of Narendra Modi are far more stronger than opposition accusing Modi of misusing investigative agencies. For example, the government's data with conviction rate for ED in the PMLA and IT department was added. The data shared by the government is a reliable source to say whether the investigative agencies have been misused and the citation explains it very well. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC))

Hey Libreravi, do you think the line saying ... former Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi to have "often made use of income-tax raids to intimidate opponents or send them to jail" ... should be added to that section? This part is still disputed as Ravikumar thinks it should be because a source makes a comparison with Modi while I think it should not be because it is not in the scope of the article and distracts from the subject. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate The sentence in question is ... "Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot cites the example of former Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi to have "often made use of income-tax raids to intimidate opponents or send them to jail" and adds that since 2019, the Modi government has been using this technique more systematically than what it did in its first ministry.".... which is at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Premiership_of_Narendra_Modi#Use_of_investigative_agencies currently. Frankly, I was surprised to see the section on misuse of investigative agencies to start with this line.

In my opinion, there are following problems with including this sentence:

1. It does not even meet the intention of the author that i.e., this is not clear from the sentence that Modi learnt from Indira Gandhi? How do we even know that he got inspired from her?

2. The sentence is irrelevant in that section as it distracts from the topic. Why is it relevant where Modi got inspired from? Please note that we are not writing a book but a short summary.(Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC))

Libreravi That shouldn't come as surprise because the chapter by Christophe Jaffrelot (best available source) also starts with this sentence when talking about the use of investigative agencies. The author has made the statement very clearly and there is no source that refutes it. If you really want to learn more about this subject then you can read read this article which I already linked above. You should also take a look atWP:JDL. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pranesh Ravikumar The Scroll article you mentioned does not say anything about investigative agencies. I think government data on the same is the best source, which I have cited already. Anyways, the opening lines of the section https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Premiership_of_Narendra_Modi#Use_of_investigative_agencies are still not very relevant. Perhaps, you should look at WP:JDL. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk)) Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a section for this at Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi § Use of investigative agencies, any further comments should go there and not on my talk page. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Islamophobia

Sir/Mam a notorious Islamophobic editor revert you here Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 to spread misinformation using police claims which are not facts as you stated. (Special:MobileDiff/1107728632) 2409:4051:116:10B3:3EC4:C593:F074:653 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah he's POV pushing in favor of love jihad which I've reverted and I will escalate this to AE/ANI if it continues. That said I'd advise you not to comment on anyone's character such as by calling them "notorious Islamophobic editor" as it is against the core policy on no personal attacks regardless of whatever they have done. Making such comments doesn't help and only decreases your own credibility, we try to have a collegial environment here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Sir (for that comment) But there is nothing like Love Jihad that exist, this is a conspiracy theory to defame Muslims. (He/She again added it) We should not use Wikipedia for misinformation against a community. 2409:4051:116:10B3:7D01:4CBF:C545:3EEF (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I understand and we have policies prohibiting promotion of conspiracy theories as well, just have some patience. Also not a sir and you don't need to address people with honorifics here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Liberals (Sweden) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon

Hello Tayi Arajakate:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Trickle-down economics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Quelques stroopwafels pour vous !

Merci d'avoir corrigé l'en-tête, j'ai essayé de le faire mais j'ai échoué plusieurs fois. Ça a l'air beaucoup mieux maintenant Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022 Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)