User talk:Aman.kumar.goel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted
Line 151: Line 151:
:::P.S. [[WP:ONUS]] is on the person who is adding the information. Have you tried to inquire why the content adding user who falsified sources? I don't see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsKhan_Aman&action=history you have]. Can you tell why? '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::P.S. [[WP:ONUS]] is on the person who is adding the information. Have you tried to inquire why the content adding user who falsified sources? I don't see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsKhan_Aman&action=history you have]. Can you tell why? '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: Because I think you're simply trying to keep entries out of the article by making the level of sourcing more and more stringent beyond what is actually needed. I haven't got a problem with you removing entries that have problems, like falsified sourcing. I ''do'' have a problem with you keeping out entries that obviously belong in the article. We do not need "self admission" if a reliable source says they were previously Hindus, and the same applies to all other "List of converts..." pages. There are plenty of suitable sources out there about the two celebrities I mentioned. It would be more collaborative if you helped to source those properly (I bet it could be done in a couple of minutes) and removed the ones that aren't sourced properly, then it would look like you are trying to improve the article rather than minimise its content. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: Because I think you're simply trying to keep entries out of the article by making the level of sourcing more and more stringent beyond what is actually needed. I haven't got a problem with you removing entries that have problems, like falsified sourcing. I ''do'' have a problem with you keeping out entries that obviously belong in the article. We do not need "self admission" if a reliable source says they were previously Hindus, and the same applies to all other "List of converts..." pages. There are plenty of suitable sources out there about the two celebrities I mentioned. It would be more collaborative if you helped to source those properly (I bet it could be done in a couple of minutes) and removed the ones that aren't sourced properly, then it would look like you are trying to improve the article rather than minimise its content. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::[[WP:BLPCAT]] is clear: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly '''self-identified with the belief (or lack of such)''' or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
:::::[[WP:BLPCAT]] is clear: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly '''self-identified with the belief (or lack of such)''' or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
:::::For those who are dead, it is best to have reliable source that clearly say "conversion from religion A to religion B" happened without finding contradiction among any other equally or more reliable source/s.
:::::For those who are dead, it is best to have reliable source that clearly say "conversion from religion A to religion B" happened without finding contradiction among any other equally or more reliable source/s.
Line 156: Line 157:
:::::: [[WP:BLPCAT]] does not refer to articles, only categories, which of course do not have inline sources. We are not adding categories to BLPs here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::: [[WP:BLPCAT]] does not refer to articles, only categories, which of course do not have inline sources. We are not adding categories to BLPs here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::By citing "BLPCAT" here, I am saying that when the content fails WP:BLPCAT and it cannot be substantiated on the main article of the subject in question, then why it would belong to a list page? It cannot belong there either. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 12:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::By citing "BLPCAT" here, I am saying that when the content fails WP:BLPCAT and it cannot be substantiated on the main article of the subject in question, then why it would belong to a list page? It cannot belong there either. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 12:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Black Kite|Aman.Kumar.Goel}}, [https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=FYidQnXUXqX7k-uw&v=De9rGkNtMRY&feature=youtu.be In this video] from the official youtube page of [[A. R. Rahman]], in an interview to [[CNN]], watch from 4.30 to 6:18 the reporter asked him about conversion feom "hinduism to Islam" clearly and Rahman did not denie it. May be it can fall under self-submission (the subject has publicly '''self-identified with the belief (or lack of such)'''. [[User:Deepmason|Deepmason]] ([[User talk:Deepmason|talk]]) 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:35, 15 September 2023

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

See Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Kindly try to stay within first 3 levels of pyramid. Initial interaction with users determines whether they must be engaged with or not. Those who tend to be disruptive, resort to personal attacks and misinterpret arguments may not find the responses very friendly.

Revert back and discuss

As per WP:NOCON, you should revert back and discuss as you're removing reliable source and contents that are existing for years in the article Rash Behari Bose. Please also note as per WP: REMOVAL: If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk)

We have discussed that your edit is highly inaccurate thus there is no need to keep the information there any longer. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

possible sockpuppet of Kkm010

Hello Sir @Aman.kumar.goel Sir i'm writing to you in regards to a very suspicious new account Rüdiger.Ingrid i'm quite confident that this user is a sock puppet of Kkm010. Here is the evidence- Same as earlier blocked socks he shows interest in Indian politics [1] [2] [3] Similar to socks Mariam57 and Angelika789 makes the same edits to Economy of India [4] Similar to socks Mariam57, Angelika789, and also this user is obsessed with GDP number of Indian states like Maharastra, West Bengal, Gujarat here are some of the diffs [5] [6] [7] Sir i'm a relatively new to wikipedia thats why i'm writing you with this case rather than editing the sock puppet investigation case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkm010/Archive i hope you look into this issue at your convenience. Thanks Vijaydanny (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Aman.kumar.goel Its bizarre editing of GDP figures and political party articles can be traced back to an earlier sock puppet. Similarly to User:Vijaydanny. I'm also new to Wikipedia, so I'm unfamiliar with many of the policies. You can check my edits to see where I have made changes as per the source. User: Vijaydanny is suddenly making outrageous claims and attempting to link me to another user simply because I edited an article about GDP figures and political parties. User:Vijaydanny is trying to remove poverty data from the "Economy of India," which I provided with reliable sources. You can check to see if I have made any mistakes. "Like Caesar's wife, you must be above suspicion." You can go ahead with the investigation if you have doubts in your mind. But please check my edits where I added information as per reliable sources, particularly the GDP figures and poverty data that User:Vijaydanny is trying to remove. He launched a similar complaint at the User:Spicy talk page. [8]. Thanks--Rüdiger.Ingrid (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan peoples

How's that content forking? You can say that most of it is extracted from some other articles but still your edits don't make sense. Without any reasonable explanation for your reverting, i would have to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi: You are clearly duplicating this article by dumping same content from other pages despite WP:UNDUE.
Use article's talk page. You will only get a WP:BOOMERANG on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aman Kumar Goel,

Please see discussion at Reversions of edits by Ellis408 to Gita main page

Thank you, Ellis408 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack, POV pushing, and threatening of "sanctions" by Aman.kumar.goel. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Kthxbay sock detected

Hello @Aman Kumar Goel, I have noticed that you have investigated and pointed out sock puppets of the user Kthxbay in the past. [9]

The user has a habit of removing 'Indian' from pages of dead wrestlers and other topics and labelling them as 'Pakistani', like they have done on The Great Gama page.

This resulted in one such sock, user Satrar being blocked a few months ago. This sock, Satrar had vandalised the article of another wrestler, Hamida Pahalwan, here [10], changing the lead from Indian to Pakistani.

The user seems to have returned again with IP edits restoring the blocked socks edit here [11] and here [12].

A sock I detected is [13] who seems to be removing India from multiple articles and adding Pakistan instead.

I'd also like to add that another sock, Uzek who has a habit of removing India from any Kashmir newspaper related article and has an entire history of pro-Pakistan pov: like here [14] and here [15]. Also something the blocked sock, user Satrar did here [16] and here [17] on the very same articles. Also, you yourself countered and reverted Uzek's pro-Pakistani nationalistic edit-warring pov a few days ago [18], which they reverted again [19].

Iftact the user has made one more alt which also removed India from a Kashmir newspaper related article here [20].

I tried mentioning this on the investigation page but couldn't due to some filter. It'd be great if you'd do it. RemovePork (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not Kthxbay. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Kthxbay alt found

I've noticed that you've reported User Kthxbay and his alts in the past [21]. Well he's back on The Great Gama page and is again removing 'Indian' in articles and replacing it with 'pakistan' via two new accounts [22], [23] and [24]. Plus also simultaneously edit warring through IP edits.

2402:3A80:696:D146:0:49:717:5201 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. Fixing it now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Nation Theory

Not sure why the two-nation theory is important to you, but I'm clearly following what the leading historians say. Since no one from RFC is responding, how about I'll revert it to follow what I said and call it a day. I am being of good faith as all I'm doing is writing about what I learnt about the two-nation theory in Pakistani school. Why should the two-nation theory be defined by those who didn't originate it? Mydust (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking prehistory

So I'm no fan of needless prehistory on country pages, but allowing a bit through tends to be necessary to keep everybody happy and not cause unnecessary edit wars and tensions. The important thing is to be consistent. And critically, I don't see you deleting prehistory on any other pages. Care to explain that? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Carl Sagan on your page

I am a lover of Carl Sagan myself, and I admire this quote. However Sagan did a mistake by giving such a long quote. As is aptly said, "Brevity is the soul of wit", the quote should have been "Skepticism and openness exist together in a great thinker." What do you feel? Neotaruntius (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Productions

Thank you for participating in DRV. You made a good point. Are you interested in leaving a comment at the AFD? Gan Favourite (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal-Maratha Wars

Please hold status quo and not evade talk page discussion. A consensus takes time. I will come up with a proposal soon. Perhaps tomorrow or the day after. Peace Fayninja (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aman.kumar.goel
As you said me to stop unconstructive edits which even not done by me!
As I am not involved in that neither I made any unconstructive edits instead that you should warn to @Capitals00 for his unconstructive edits without providing sources!
I just undid his edit asked him for sources!
So next time didn't try to divert discussion & Messege me on my talk page only when you warned to @Capitals00.
Otherwise don't message Aryan330 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice on behalf of someone who didn't do it

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Game page vandalism

I'd like to inform you that The Great Gama page has been vandalized again, with accounts removing Indian from the lead again. If you could fix it and request a lock on that page, it'd be great. Lamepora (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb

Hi, i noticed that Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb has been created again under the title Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. I think it should be reviewed, as it was deleted 4 times before. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aman.kumar.goel,

You tagged this article for speedy deletion but neglected to inform the article creator of the tagging. You used Twinkle so this should have been automatic. Please check your Twinkle Preferences. You should have "Notify page creator" box checked off and go into the CSD option and make sure all of the CSD criteria boxes are checked off. Letting the article creator know that their page creations might be deleted and, even more importantly, why they might be deleted, is an essential step in the deletion process. Please make sure that this notification happens in the future with any deletion tagging.

By the way, I declined to act on your speedy deletion request because this is a translation of another project's article and is not identical to the article that was deleted in the last AFD. That also closed as "Delete" partially because the article was created by a sockpuppet. But it looks like this subject has been at AFD four times and every time the decision was to delete the article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You have been told before too that you are wrong with your claim that notification is necessary and users are free to avoid posting notification.[25]
The "translation of another project" comes from the same globally locked account who has been socking and repeatedly recreating the article on this project as well.[26] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 tagging

When tagging a page for speedy deletion under WP:G5, you need to include the name of the sockmaster rather than the sockpuppet. WP:G5 is for block evasion, rather then for sockpuppetry and WP:G5 only applies if there is evidence that block evasion is occurring. If you're unsure of the sockmaster, feel free to contact the blocking admin. Thank you. BangJan1999 19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say the same thing. In the CSD G5 field, if you are using Twinkle, put the username of the editor who is evading their block, the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. This is partially because if an editor or admin is reviewing the deletion request, they need to be able to review the SPI case and that is filed under the sockmaster's name, not the sockpuppet. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color me confused

What's with Bangladeshi Wikipedians voting en masse to keep the article - a plan to preserve this section? Bizarre behaviour. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the article itself. This sockpuppet IP is canvassing people on Bengali Wikipedia to recruit people to vote on this article's AfD.[27] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Qaayush529

This user Qaayush529 had edited a lot of wikipedia article about Mughal empire and he removed a lot of information about them despite having the reliable references. 1)In article like economy of Mughal, history of Asia ,indian subcontinent.He removed the economical contribution of Mughal empire to the world GDP. 2)He shows a character of attacking wikipedia page about indian topics and added unreferenced sources. I request you to revert all his edits as he is just doing it in order to fix his agenda. Kudiophi clopsvimbi (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudiophi clopsvimbi: He is blocked. You can revert him too. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like help archiving your talk page?

Your talk page is currently 286KB in size. WP:TALKCOND recommends archiving old or resolved sections from talk pages that are larger than 75KB. Would you like help moving some older material to your archive? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: No problem.  Done. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts

Can you explain this revert, please? Some of these additions look fine to me - one is even an interview with the subject concerning his conversion! Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are misleading. None of these interviews mention if the particular person was a "Hindu" or followed "Hinduism" before converting to Islam. In fact, one of them mentioned "I was born Christian, and I follow Islam now". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk)
Yes, I discarded that one, which is why I said "some". But there are four others, so (1) Are you claiming that AR Rahman and Ayesha Takia were not Hindu before conversion? (2) Do you have copies of the books that are used as sources? Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our own speculation does not count per WP:OR. The source must include their own statement that they were Hindus before.
The source was falsified with regards to Khusrau Khan (its is well documented he converted back to Hinduism) and also Raja Nahar Khan (source does not mention he was a Hindu but only that he "accepted Islam" and "got the forts"). Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. WP:ONUS is on the person who is adding the information. Have you tried to inquire why the content adding user who falsified sources? I don't see that you have. Can you tell why? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think you're simply trying to keep entries out of the article by making the level of sourcing more and more stringent beyond what is actually needed. I haven't got a problem with you removing entries that have problems, like falsified sourcing. I do have a problem with you keeping out entries that obviously belong in the article. We do not need "self admission" if a reliable source says they were previously Hindus, and the same applies to all other "List of converts..." pages. There are plenty of suitable sources out there about the two celebrities I mentioned. It would be more collaborative if you helped to source those properly (I bet it could be done in a couple of minutes) and removed the ones that aren't sourced properly, then it would look like you are trying to improve the article rather than minimise its content. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT is clear: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
For those who are dead, it is best to have reliable source that clearly say "conversion from religion A to religion B" happened without finding contradiction among any other equally or more reliable source/s.
I understand that the list is not big but we cannot add things only for the sake of expansion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT does not refer to articles, only categories, which of course do not have inline sources. We are not adding categories to BLPs here. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By citing "BLPCAT" here, I am saying that when the content fails WP:BLPCAT and it cannot be substantiated on the main article of the subject in question, then why it would belong to a list page? It cannot belong there either. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Aman.Kumar.Goel:, In this video from the official youtube page of A. R. Rahman, in an interview to CNN, watch from 4.30 to 6:18 the reporter asked him about conversion feom "hinduism to Islam" clearly and Rahman did not denie it. May be it can fall under self-submission (the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such). Deepmason (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]