User talk:Walrus Ji

Welcome!

Hello, Walrus Ji! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! Walrus Ji, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Republic TV, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 11:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji, your edit summary on that page doesn't make sense. The edit you're trying to revert has already been reverted long ago, and all your edit does is removing a well cited descriptor in the lead and moving it under a subsection. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate and Newslinger:, I have explained my edit already on "User talk:Oshawott 12#Please stop restoring spam and false accusation against me". To answer your question, the edit I am trying to revert has only been partially reverted. Please check using this link. On clicking, and scrolling down the page, you will see an additional descriptor in the subsection. This new descriptor seems to have survived the reverts done before me. --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got confused, your edit didn't remove it from the lead but instead from the subsection. The descriptor doesn't need to be removed from the subsection, ideally everything in the lead should be derived from the body. See WP:LEAD. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Republic TV, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. — Newslinger talk 14:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the clarification in User talk:Oshawott 12 § Please stop restoring spam and false accusation against me, I've downgraded the above message to a lower-level warning. However, in Special:Diff/989393149, you removed a citation to a high-quality academic source with an inaccurate edit summary (the edit did not undo revision 988494866), and generated a citation template error. In Special:Diff/989490836, you removed a word and a citation of the same academic source from the article body with a similarly inaccurate edit summary. — Newslinger talk 14:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate and Newslinger:, Please take a look at this edit when "right wing" was wrongly introduced in the criticism section. The first diff you listed happened when I had faced some kind of an error while undoing the original edit, it seems the content that I had cut did not get pasted and I failed to notice and cure it. In both of my edits that you listed, I was trying to move the word "right wing" to its original location. Please compare the old and the current version of the article in this link, scrolling down to the criticism section you will see that the recently introduced word "right wing" is yet to be removed from the criticism section of the article. I still believe my edit was completely justified, and was in line according to this talk page discussion. For doing the agreed upon edit, you have now given this warning. Do you still believe this new warning is justified? Walrus Ji (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I've struck the amended warning as well. In the future, if you ever need to revise an edit summary to clarify a previous edit, the preferred way to do this is to make a dummy edit on the page. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 15:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that the misunderstanding has been cleared. Thanks for the information.Walrus Ji (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mohan Bhagwat without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Please see my response on Talk:Mohan Bhagwat#Recently added Opinion without context Walrus Ji (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Krishna, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Bhagyalakshmi temple. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Thank you for the information. It was in the page history. Will follow your advice. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I know that it was; but you obviously need to check what you restore. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Happy editing. --Walrus Ji (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed succession boxes

Hi. When using "succession boxes", there should be a {{S-start}}, one or more {{Succession box}}, and then a {{S-end}}. In five articles you recently edited, you put additional {{S-start}} templates before each {{Succession box}} and also did not add an ending {{S-end}}. I've corrected them at:

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlanM1, my apologies for missing the S-end. This is the first time I have used this template. It seems I forgot to add it in some pages but added in others. I will be more careful with the S-end in future. Nevertheless, I am so glad that you were able to spot the error and fix it up for me. Just curious how did you find the error, as it was not visible by looking on the published page. Atleast I could not spot anything missing from the published page. Asking it as knowing this will help me spot the error in future. Thanks for cleaning up behind me.--Walrus Ji (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tool that finds and reports on syntax problems, some of which are not always visible, but have the potential to cause problems in the future. The reports can be seen at Special:LintErrors. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, I see. Thanks for the response. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Fylindfotberserk (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays, Fylindfotberserk. Have a good one. --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote

I’m curious what your reasoning was in removing the Wikiquote link on University of Missouri article? Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey Wanderer:, I just made a dummy edit clarifying it. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. My apologies for the confusion caused due to the incomplete edit summary. I took care of it in most edits. This was one of those where I missed to add the links. If you believe that the Wikiquote page is useful for the reader, you may re-add it stating the same in the edit summary. I have no objections. Happy holidays. --Walrus Ji (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is local politicians notable

Saw your comment on my talk page. When I went through the Notability about politicians, I saw that just being the mayor of a small town does not make anyone notable. Thats why I nominated it for deletions. And about WP:Before, I read about the article yesterday and did a research. And about this edit and this AfD edit, the first one is also a mayor; so I compared these both and went for the AFD of the latter one. I agree with your suspicion. It can happen. Feel free to add your comment at the AFD. Thankyou Shahoodu (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahoodu:, Since I started this discussion on your talk page, lets continue it on your talk page to keep the discussion together. --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Walrus Ji!

Happy New Year!

Walrus Ji,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you @Fylindfotberserk:. Wishing a very happy New Year to you too. --Walrus Ji (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking AfDs

Hi! A page in AfD can be blanked if it has some blatant violation, like copyright, BLP, hoax, etc. But otherwise blanking articles while in AfD is considered disruptive and is no different than blanking any other article. It doesn't matter if the blanking is done by the page author or not, they don't own the article. There is only one G7 case where they really are the only substantial author. But nominating a page for AfD is most certainly a substantial edit especially since other editors have commented in AfD. With these clearly non-notable cases like Aashid‎, in practice no one really cares if the author further messes with the page or blanks it since no one is going to edit it anyway. But strictly speaking blanking should not be done. This is even written in bold on the AfD template. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz, first of all the heading on this page should say "Restoring the blanking of the article by the author." because clearly no AfDs were blanked. The current header is misleading and should be changed. I clearly disagree with you when you say that AfD tag is a substantial edit. It is not, it is just a procedural edit. Anything worthwhile on the page is still written by the author. Please point me to the rule if there is one. I believe the G7 reason still holds.

Yes you are right about the no blanking written in the AfD template. So I have self reverted myself. I hope your concern is now resolved. Is there anything else I can do to help you? Walrus Ji (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grover no 1

Hi Walrus Ji, Can you restore the contents of the page Aashid to a draft. [[User:Grover no 1|Grover no 1]] ([[User talk:Grover no 1|talk]]). (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]