User talk:DaxServer

Sockpuppet Anonymous user anonymous user 60.53.132.106 is back with a new ID as 175.145.180.172

Anonymous user blocked anonymous user 60.53.132.106 is back with a new ID as an unsigned anonymous user as 175.145.180.172 it was blocked for more than one week. Keep an eye on him /her please SaNaNtha Hegde (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please do have a look and recheck at what he/she is pointing and revertingSaNaNtha Hegde (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaNaNtha Hegde (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Recheck — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaNaNtha Hegde (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See from both sides SaNaNtha Hegde (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mekapati Goutham Reddy

On 23 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mekapati Goutham Reddy, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

I'm a new Wikipidians, and so May be i did mistakes But I will correct in every aspect And You are a Extended Confirmed users, you have so much experience and I know that Administrators can block me, if I can edit any Wikipedia Page's without a proper sources or with personal agenda. But here I Didn't edit with personnel thinking, this is the true fact with article with true souces like Indian Express, times of India, and hindustan times. Sir you have so much experienced as a Wikipidians then how can you force your narrative in a new Wikipedia users. Sources are right or wrong who can decided, I want to know Sir Sandymark11 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sandymark11 The content you have added is a synthesis. While the individual statements might be verifiable, connecting them together as the "Reason" when other reliable sources didn't is an original research and is not allowed here.

Apart from that, you seem to know a good detail about user rights levels. As already stated on your talk page, using multiple accounts, except for legitimate reasons, is not allowed as well. — DaxServer (t · c) 18:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (amended 10:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC))

ITN recognition for Yadlapati Venkata Rao

On 1 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Yadlapati Venkata Rao, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  13:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please check page Raajneeti. I think the guy who tried to manipulate Mahabharat 1988 page also tried to manipulate that page. I'm not sure but first critical response seems like made up. Please check Rtyggu (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rtyggu Looks like this edit [1] introduced the Karna promotion. Once you are done with your edits on the page, let me know. I'll make further corrections. Thanks for bringing this to my notice :) — DaxServer (t · c) 12:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm only checking award section. He even added some fake awards. It's done now. You can make further corrections Rtyggu (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Done with the reviews for now :) Couple of links are dead and archives are not found. Can't help them, but they seem to be genuine and not the promotional ones from that user. — DaxServer (t · c) 13:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello bro! Please see Depictions in popular culture section of Arjuna. Ankit Arora was the actor who played Arjun but Arya Dharmchand Kumar's name is there who actually played Karna. Rtyggu (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the note. I'll correct it — DaxServer (t · c · m) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Mahananda (2022 film). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Aren't you supposed to template the other user who removed the CSD tag? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DaxServer - Yes. I apologize. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Twitter alert: Hindu-related articles

which is why I gave that article a DS alert. It's Sanjeev Sanyal tweeting. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yupp saw that one, and commented an earlier tweet from November — DaxServer (t · c) 16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. He's trying to play good guy at times. Not going to name people but TB is a paid editor, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw that one! Best to keep an eye on the tweets hereafter. The reach he gets is only getting broader. Not sure what he got against TB and the likes. Most likely his WP account was blocked and/or banned. His IP was globally blocked and he blames TB, V93 and K3! — DaxServer (t · c) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think DS on Vikram Sampath would be warranted? Not sure where and how @Newslinger came in the middle of this. — DaxServer (t · c) 14:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And Audrey Truschke and Sanjeev Sanyal? — DaxServer (t · c) 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Meters may recall the block of his account. Thinking about the DS. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, this was 10 years ago and he was blocked for offwiki harassment.[2] Doug Weller talk 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a long-time grudge to hold on to. Still continuing -_- — DaxServer (t · c) 15:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BharatPe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilaspur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed for Citation

Hi,

I am working on the citation tag you added for Draupadi. I had a question. I know link to jstor is acceptable but are researchgate and academia.edu links acceptable too? These are repositories for journals and scholarly research similar to jstor.

Thanks (Panchalidraupadi (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC))

@Panchalidraupadi Since this is a mythological character, I'd say academic scholarship is to be preferred over contemporary journalism. That being said, it depends on what kind of sources you have. Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board might be able to help you further. One thing to note: do not use self-published sources. — DaxServer (t · c) 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. (Panchalidraupadi (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC))

Hope it helped. Good luck with your editing :) DaxServerOnMobile (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I have cleaned up the page for Draupadi, changed the tone as per Wiki standards, added references and revamped the sections following the same standards used in other pages of mythology. I might have to add better references in a place or two, but otherwise others cater to Wiki rules. Please confirm if I can remove the tone and citations tags.

Also, I gotta add some copied template in Arjuna page bcoz I copied one section "Literary Background" from there. Will do it shortly.

Thanks

(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC))

@Panchalidraupadi Thanks for your good work! If you think the article is in good shape now, please go ahead and remove the tags :) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thanks a ton! Panchalidraupadi (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thantha ila kazhuveri

Da poori mone you forgot to block my ip address. You can try to block my IP address forever. But i will come back in a week. Harald Hardrada was my 15th wikipedia account and I have many backup accounts. If one get blocked i use another. No one can stop including administrators shitss. Those users have no problem with me you are the one who tried to report and now I'm blocked. From now, you are my enemy. See you soon after a week nayinta mone. 49.15.202.40 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Why was my edit reversed?

Why did you reverse the previous edit? MT111222 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve already explained on your talk page!! DaxServerOnMobile (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Elections in India

This edit says that "ETPB" was replaced with "ETPB". I've seen this occationally. Any idea what's up? Thanks! Adakiko (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko It seems the actual term is Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS) [3] [4] [5] Hope it helps :) — DaxServer (t · c) 11:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm dyslexic today. "ETPB" was changed to "ETBP" swapping the B & P. I must have stared at it for five minutes trying to figure out why "ETPB" was changed to "ETPB" (not seeing the difference)! Argh! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rofl 🤣 A day to remember 😵‍💫 — DaxServer (t · c) 13:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Silk

I'm merging all of her films into one graph with language represented for each one. It will take a bit of time to do so, but it will be much better that way --Aaron106 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aaron106 Thanks for telling me. Consider placing an {{in use}} template when you are updating. — DaxServer (t · c · m) 17:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Ok thanks --Aaron106 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Khairatabad Ganesh

On 15 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khairatabad Ganesh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the height of the Ganesh idol at Khairatabad in India increased by one foot (0.3 m) every year between 1954 and 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khairatabad Ganesh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Khairatabad Ganesh), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I'm wondering why you use feet as the primary unit for this article when India is a metric country and MOS:UNIT would require SI units primary? Avi8tor (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Avi8tor In India, the units are mixed. We use both SI units and imperial units and depends on what is being quantified. SI is not primary. The height is measured in feet and inches. MOS:UNITS say the same to use MOS:TIES and feet/inches for height. Also, with WP:V, we use what the sources say, which is feet. Hope it answers! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 20:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Peddapalli district

Template:Peddapalli district has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India

Please check the sources before you make tags about needing verification and citation.

As for my addition of homosexuality and pedastry being prevalent in Central Asia, but not much in India, it is present here [6].

Urdu poetry mentioning "Amarad Parast" or those who have love for boys and young men is here [7].

All of the sources I've cited and are written by bonafide historians and scholars anyway. Hope you can remove your tags. In case you get a "preview for this page is not visible", enter a term in the search box on the left side of the book and then click on clear search on the yellow band that appears on the book page. It will be visible then. Tonk111 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sophisticated bigotry etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Where did bigotry come from? In case you're thinking that, I'm not anti-Muslim or anti-LGBT. And please don't remove reliably sourced material. You didn't even give a reason, but your motivations are clear given your comment. I'll report you next time if you assume bad faith. Tonk111 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And btw try looking at Talk:Kamlesh Tiwari before accusing me of "bigotry". I was the one arguing that Tiwari's comments against Muhammad were actually an insult and disparaging comment against him, not some opinion on his sexuality. A person who is a bigot will never do that. Tonk111 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Files request

Hi DaxServer, please could you consider the consensus in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama and provide your feedback in the section? Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Webberbrad007 Unfortunately genres are not one of my strengths. I'd advise posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force for better advise — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 If there is still no consensus, you can look up the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process on what to do next — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DaxServer - there is concensus amongst editors who have a view on the matter (you can see it if you visit the link) and as such, this isn't a dispute (so far).

However, I doubt those editors are permissioned to edit due to the restriction in place. Active editors on the page Trangabellam, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93 have not yet engaged even though I have pinged them and now have reached out on their respective talk pages.

-- Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

[REMOVED comment] My comment was incorrect and made the wrong assumption. I apologise to DaxServer Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 The edit was done by @Tamjeed Ahmed — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly. Removed the comment. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 No worries, I know it's not your mistake — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Might you be able to revert Tamjeed_Ahmed's edit as it is completely against the consensus reached amongst those participating in the discussion here Talk:The Kashmir Files#Drama Film to Historical Drama? I would have done it myself but I don't qualify.

-- Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's done — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Main Page on a "All RFCs" 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, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: The Kashmir Files

I believe I know what you have in mind here but I am intentionally (at least for the moment) not attempting to correct every mistaken contention about wikipedia policy etc from some of the newer editors. That's because it is very easy to get sucked into endlessly arguing the weakest point made by an editor and missing out on how the article can actually be improved.
Speaking of the latter: my read of the talkpage discussion is that there is a general opinion (albeit not necessarily held by everyone) that the Box Office section can be a bit more detailed than the current version while not spread to the lengths of this previous one. However, no one has yet taken the initiative to actually sit down and compose a concrete few sentences to implement that. This is understandable given that everyone is a volunteer, but IMO until that happens the discussion will remained stuck in the abstract/extremes. I believe RegentsPark and you were thinking along the same lines in your previous comments and believe that may be a better place to expend effort on than to argue the details of each talkpage comment.
Posting this here rather than on the article talkpage so as not to get into such meta-topics there. Hope that's ok. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Totally understandable! I wanted to reply originally but the arguments posed were very basic and I wasn't sure where to start. Since it remains unanswered I believe SGiaNaksh will only repeat them. It wasn't a section like Special:Permalink/1078205056#"Fictional" self contradiction where I could link to WP:FILMHIST and let others read thru it.

Regarding Box office, yes. It needs more detailed info. I'd put something into the talk section a version I think would be suitable and see what others comment. Didn't have much time/focus on my hands until, but should be good this afternoon. I wish WP:ICTF involves more into the article, I left a note on its talk page anyway. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mahananda (2022 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mahananda (2022 film) 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/Mahananda (2022 film) 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 on a "All RFCs" 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, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Your close of Valavanur railway station AfD

Hi! I'm writing to express a concern about your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valavanur railway station. Your close mentions that WP:V was satisfied (WP:DEL-REASON #7 does not apply), but many users had lingering concerns about whether or not the article meets the general notability guideline (WP:DEL-REASON #8). The close did not address this and it's not clear to me that there was any consensus on the AfD about that, even though it's a policy-based reason for deletion. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to self-revert your close and either relist the AfD pending more discussion or close it as no consensus without prejudice for renomination. The current justification of the keep close and many of the pro-keep !votes don't seem to be sufficient given that it does not address all of the deletion reasons credibly given in the discussion. As consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, I'm left scratching my head as to why failure to meet WP:GNG was not considered in the closing summary. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mhawk10 Apparently, the creator of the article ignored the WP:AFC process as the initial article was draftified; and simply re-created the article, which is why I believe it ended up at AfD. Reliable sources were searched for and added, after the initial arguments that sources would be available. All the draftification !votes challenged that the article is unsourced [and keepers' arguments of sources must exist], which was later resolved, thus making their arguments moot. That satisfied the WP:DEL-REASON #7. There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable and that we keep them, which satisfies #8. Thus is my assessment of the consensus. I see that my closure statement is a tad bit lacking in explaining the same and I'm open to amend it. I won't be reverting it for a relist or a no-consensus re-closure. If you disagree, you might want to pursue WP:DRV. Let me know which path you'd like to take further. P.S. In case if you're wondering, we were both editing (me closing) at the same time and thus I was not able to see your comment until after I closed it, altho my closure would still be the same :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)