User talk:Amazingcaptain

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amazing Captain (April 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Amazingcaptain/sandbox/Amazing Captain and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Amazingcaptain/sandbox/Amazing Captain, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Amazingcaptain! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notices

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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 09:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Subramanian Swamy

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy

Hi, I feel rather flattered that you asked me to review your draft. I don't know anything whatsoever about this event and I note above that it was moved to draftspace because it "does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published". That is something I cannot help you with, also I don't have time to check the sources and make sure the article cites them accurately. All I can do is a little copy-editing and make suggestions to keep the language neutral. So:

• In the lead it says "She received widespread support for raising her voice against eve-teasing" - I was not familiar with this expression and had to google it. I see that it is common in South Asia and there is an article about it here Eve teasing. Suggest you link to it.
• " a purported eyewitness vouched for Sarvjeet's innocence which brought credibility to Sarvjeet's account" Why does it say "purported" eyewitness? Is there doubt as to whether this person really was an eyewitness? Don't need to say "which brought credibility to Sarvjeet's account" as that is a given if the eyewitness vouched for his innocence.
• "the Indian court acquitted Sarvjeet of all the charges and Sarvjeet was acquitted of all the charges" that is saying the same thing twice. once is enough
• Background section
• On August 23rd, 2015, Jasleen Kaur, a student of St. Stephen's College, posted a picture of a man claiming he passed obscene comments on her during an argument on road" should be "On August 23rd, 2015, Jasleen Kaur, a student at St. Stephen's College, posted a picture of a man claiming he passed obscene comments at her during an argument on the road."
• There are lots of grammatical mistakes in Facebook post but since that is, I suppose, a direct quote, it doesn't matter but can you translate "Jo kar sakti hai kar le. Complaint karke dikha, fir dekhiyo kya karta hun main" - leave the original but put the translation in italics and add (translation)
• That's about all I can say, I hope it was a little help. Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Thanks a lot for reviewing.

• Regarding it being moved to draftspace, I requested the guy to move it to draftspace as I had directly made the article on the mainspace. At that time, the article was half done. I have added more than double the sources compared to that time.
• Oh, I didn't know 'Eve teasing' is common only in the South Asia. Will link it.
• Yes, the accuser has claimed that the eyewitness could be a 'plant' by the defendant.
• Will take care of the other errors pointed out as well.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop disruptive editing

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Marathi people, 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 the 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. Thank you Useralways1 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked, removing vandalizing edits didn't count as disruptive editing. Maybe if you stop vandalizing you won't get blocked the next time. Amazingcaptain (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Subramanian Swamy

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

This[1] is tendentious editing / vandalism. The citation is at the end of the sentence, as has already been pointed out to you. Serious competence issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This is totally uncalled for. I had asked you on the Talk page of the page and had left the message for 4-5 days to cite the source before making that change but you ignored my question. The source at the end of the sentence doesn't mention that the party is a right wing party. I asked to show me if it is but you didn't.

The citation is for a book and page number, and it literally verbatim says that the party, which Swamy belongs to, is right-wing. I'm not going to buy and send you a book or whatever nonsense it is that you're now requesting from me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Never asked that, anyway could you quote the exact quote from the book that says "Janata Party" is a right wing party? I'll look it up myself if it exists in the book.

The book literally says "right-wing Janata Party" on the cited page. What more do you want? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Nope. If this is what you are talking about, it doesn't. It talks about Janata Dal, and not Janata party. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=asyxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT196#v=onepage&q&f=false. If it's something else, let me know.

I am being accused of edit warring on Subramanian Swamy

Hi,

In the article Subramanian Swamy, there exists a statement that says "Swamy was one of the founding members of the right-wing Janata Party". I couldn't find a reference that Janata Party is a right-wing party. There is a citation at the end of the sentence which links to this book - http://worldcat.org/oclc/1090162885. I cannot access the book, however I searched extensively regarding "Janata Party" being a right wing party, even searched for quotes in this book and I couldn't find any references for it. Since I couldn't find anything, I added an inline 'citation needed' next to it. An editor reverted my changes saying that the citation is already present. I did not revert their changes but started a conversation on the talk page and asked them to provide the source for it as I clearly couldn't find it anywhere. Even the exact statement/quote from the book would have sufficed. I waited for 3 days but they didn't reply however they were active on the site so I added the inline "citation needed" again. They again revert it without providing any information and add an edit warring warning on my talk page.

This same user in the past was edit warring claiming Subramanian Swamy is Anti-Muslim and said it is referenced in sources when in reality the referenced articles didn't mention anything about Swamy being being known for being Anti-Muslim. At that time also they added an Edit Warring warning on my talk page.

In both of this cases, they are failing to maintain an NPOV which is against BLP guidelines.

Can someone please tell me if I am in the wrong here and anything I could have differently since I think I have followed all the guidelines, started a discussion, waited for a reasonable time. This user on the other hand didn't wish to communicate at all and just reverts my changes adds edit-warring warnings on my talk page. I totally understand this party may be a right-wing party, I just don't like this behavior.

Someone please help me on this.

PS --- A quote from WP:BRD: "All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." It says if a response is not received on the talk page, edit. Which is what I did.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, you are in a dispute, you need to solve it on the talk page and if you're still unable to do so, you can try WP:DRN. Please don't use the help me template to complain about other editors or pull people to your disputes. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I can't use WP:DRN as it says before posting there I must have an extensive discussion on the talk page. Since I haven't gotten any response over there yet, I cannot post there. This is what was written on WP:DRN: "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution. You can find instructions on how to do this at this page, or you can place {helpme} on your own talk page, and a volunteer will come by your page to help." Thanks. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And you're not going to speed up that discussion by endlessly canvassing or forum shopping. Wait for a response. There is no time frame required for them to respond or anyone else. You simply wait. Praxidicae (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I disagree on that. If on an actively edited page you do not get response for a reasonable period, you simply edit. Please read WP:BRD It's not even like I edited multiple times on the same day. I waited for three days and no one mentioned anything. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there are a few discussions happening on the talk page, which as mentioned above is the ideal location to hold such discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Amazingcaptain, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Amazingcaptain, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Pharaoh of the Wizards: -Amazingcaptain (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NCCAPS

I have some other issues with how you edit (WP:TENDENTIOUS, as other editors have pointed out) as well as you claiming that any information you happen to dislike is not NPOV, even if it is well-sourced. However, I am here to bring your attention to WP:NCCAPS. Please do not use extraneous capital letters in section headers. RedHotPear (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RedHotPear Thanks for pointing out. Can you show me an instance where I've removed something that was well-sourced?

I've had two issues on the Subramanian Swamy page. One was "Swamy is known for being Anti-Muslim." which was unsourced (ironically, I was pointed out WP:TENDENTIOUS by the editor who was edit warring unsourced anti-muslim). The second was "Right-wing Janata Party", as I said earlier the source didn't mention about Janata Party being a right-wing party but "Janata Dal" a right wing party. And both are separate parties. So, I added a "citation needed" on it.

Regarding WP:NCCAPS, I don't know where have I violated this and I would be glad if you showed me. Amazingcaptain (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Refer to my talk page comments; while "known for" was too strong, the "anti-Muslim" descriptor in general comes directly out of reliable sources. You have also made several edits claiming that certain content is either unsourced or not neutral, when neither was the case. Instead, you seemed to be selectively editing out information that you perceived to be unfavorable to Swamy. BLP requires balance and caution, not removing all content that you think is negative.

With regard to NCCAPS, I am referring to the "Family and Personal life" section header that you edited in as well as your proposed restructuring on the talk page. RedHotPear (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop clearing those informations on Bono people article

I don't know your motive but whatever it is, do not erase those informations. It is very relevant for research purposes and those informations are highly sourced, of which you can refer to them if you don't understand anything. Wikipedia is for everyone, that does not mean you can do anything you like. Sacrifice06 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sacrifice06: I think you mistook me for someone else. The only change I've made on that page was correcting a spelling mistake here.

Cheers.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- The9Man ^(Talk) 06:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I undid your edit at George Floyd to link Killing of George Floyd in the hatnote. Per WP:RELATED, we don't link to pages that are not ambiguous with the current page tile. Information on his death is readily available in the text. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Amazingcaptain/sandbox/Amazing Captain

Hello, Amazingcaptain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Amazing Captain".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:46, 19 October 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

International Chess Committee of the Deaf moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, International Chess Committee of the Deaf, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:International Chess Committee of the Deaf

Hello, Amazingcaptain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:International Chess Committee of the Deaf, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:International Chess Committee of the Deaf

Hello, Amazingcaptain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "International Chess Committee of the Deaf".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)