User talk:Tayi Arajakate

Barnstars

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You've gotten through the worst of it, and you're a fully-fledged member of the community now! :D Congratulations on getting unblocked! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For patiently responding on the talk pages and setting an example on WP:CIVIL. good work. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

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)

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.

Template:Z33 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)

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)

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.