User talk:Apoorva Iyer
November 2017
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Immigrant generations, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
April 2018
Your recent editing history at Emily Blunt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 01:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you see my edit-summary here explaining why the "of Indian origin" is relevant to this particular author and compliant with WP:MOS#Context? Please self-revert or explain your reasoning on the article talkpage, instead of blindly edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Apoorva Iyer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Apoorva Iyer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Alisha Farrer
I've reverted your edit to Alisha Farrer. I can see from your past activity that you have a special interest in racial categorization, but I fear you are misrepresenting WP:ETHNICITY. Note that it says “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.”
In this case Farrer is notable because she is an Indian actress who works in Indian TV and cinema - she does not work in the Australian TV/film industry. She uses her Indian-ness as a professional trademark - it is integral to her notability. I don’t think she would even warrant a WP article as an unsuccessful Miss World Western Australia entrant. regards John beta (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that if her ethnicity is notable to her fame, then it is to be included in the lead. But I disagree with HOW you are including it. Prior to any edits in the past few days, her ethnicity WAS included in the lead but it was clear that it was her ethnicity and/or heritage as opposed to her nationality. But saying "Indian-Australian" or "Australian-Indian" confuses this matter, as opposed to saying "Australian of Indian heritage" or "Australian of Indian ethnicity". I am not opposed to inclusion in the lead but am opposed to presenting her Indian ethnicity as though it were her nationality.
Foreign born cricketers
How is it not relevant if they're foreign born for Australian cricketers but not for others (Tom Curran for example). Clearly you're interested in Australian sport but for other countries the players are always listed as foreign born in the lead. Are you going to change those too? We can't have inconsistency because of your reading of that document when so many others appear to read it the other way. brob (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that there are other wiki pages and/or biographies that may go against wikipedia guidelines and include prior nationalities and/or places of birth of players even if said nationality or place of birth has nothing to do with their present nationality that they are notable under. However, this does not and should not mean that every article/biography must then be rendered incorrect to "Fit a pattern" per say. Furthermore, I am not interested necessarily in all Australian sportsmen and so have no obligation to change every single one, although I recommend those who are interested in those pages to edit them appropriately. It would be ridiculous to assert that I as a single user and editor should go through every single wikipedia article to edit them on this topic.
I didn't assert. I asked. Is everyone else wrong then? Genuine question because if they are then a lot of them are wrong. brob (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If they are including prior nationalities and/or place of birth in the lead without it being relevant to the notability of the individual at hand, then yes, that would be incorrect. For example, if someone became a famous soccer player playing for some national team but then chose to obtain another nationality to play for another team, then it would make sense to place their birth nationality in the lead because it is directly relevant to their notability as a soccer player. On the other hand, if someone's family immigrated from a country when they were a child and they obtained a different nationality and became a famous (insert whatever they are famous for here), then it would be inappropriate to include their birth nationality/place in the lead because they first off may not even be that nationality anymore, and secondly that nationality is not at all relevant to their notability and so should not be given that sort of emphasis or importance to warrant inclusion in the lead.
I think of it the way I think of any other thing that you may consider including in the lead. If it is not directly relevant to the notability of the person at hand, why is it in the lead? Just like we would not include sexuality, ethnicity, or religion in the lead (unless that is directly relevant to that individual's notability), we would not include prior nationalities and/or place of birth. That more appropriately belongs in the "early life" section of the biographical page.
Good points. Thanks. brob (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, absolutely!
June 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Kalpana Chawla, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 
Aranya 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You removed my editing of Nasim Pedrad
Hi Sir,
Could you please tell me why did you remove my editing of Nasim Pedrad?? I dont see anything wrong in stating that she is Iranian who lives in USA... e.g. American Iranian. She cannot be American. Only by papers but by her birth nationality she is Iranian. I would kindly ask of you to return the description of her that I made, or otherwise I will do it myself..
Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1AGG10N3 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can explain why I reverted the edit, and I do believe I was correct in doing so. If you look at wiki regulations on biography ledes, and read WP:Ethnicity specifically, it specifies that place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity are not included in the lede unless relevant to notability. She became famous in the United States as an American citizen, thereby making "American" the appropriate lede description as opposed to "Iranian-American" or "Iranian" for instance. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
it's call a short description.
I understand that you're trying to help, but this could technically be called vandalism. If you felt it was not accurate then I'd have not said a word about you changing it, but completely removing it is wrong. He was born in India, and the text you removed did not claim anything about citizenship. If you don't understand Wikipedia:Short description, perhaps you should ask someone. Please be a bit more careful in the future. If you feel the short description should not contain "India", then feel free to not include that part, but please repair the error you made. At least put some of the description back into the article. I'll wait to see if you make any effort to fix your error. — Ched : ? — 00:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for removing it entirely. Yes, I think it should be edited to state "American" as opposed to "Indian-American" as this is accurate for the individual in question, as simply being born in a country does not make you necessarily a hyphenated nationality. Forgive me, but I am not sure how to edit it. Let me try. If not, perhaps you can. Thanks, and my apologies.
I was able to add the short description back in and edit it.
- You did fine - thank you very much. cheers. By the way, I noticed that you have several notifications on your talk page. If there's anything I can do to help, feel free to ask on my talk page. Happy editing. — Ched : ? — 00:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Do I really have notifications on my talk page? I haven't received any alert for any notifications. To my knowledge I have been keeping up with everything posted on my talk page. Perhaps there's something I'm missing?
- I was referring to some of the sections above - I believe you've already addressed them.
Also, are you familiar with signing your signature to things you post? By putting four of those tilde punctuation marks at the end of your post - it posts the who and the when of that post. Example: ~~~~ .. for me it adds the following:— Ched : ? — 00:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Yes, I am aware how to sign my name. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ethnicity in the lead
Apoorva Iyer, ok. Then why in the case of Nikolai Gogol ethnicity is mentioned in the lead? Beliknol (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea why another article may or may not include ethnicity in the lead. If said ethnicity or prior nationality is not directly relevant to that person's notability, it should not be in the lead per Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:Ethnicity. One article not following the guidelines does not justify another article doing the same. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Beliknol (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on John Leguizamo, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! - FlightTime (open channel) 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Apoorva_Iyer reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
John Leguizamo
Please see WP:BURDEN. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 00:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Apoorva Iyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Person who blocked me continued to revert my edits despite my edits being explained and in line with wikipedia biography guidelines Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk only about your actions, not those of other users. WP:GAB can help you understand how to contest your block. Yamla (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
On the page "John Leguizamo", editor FlightTime continued to add "Colombian-born" in the lead when it is very clear in WP:Ethnicity, Wikipedia guidelines on leads on biographies, that place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity are not included in the lead unless directly relevant to notability. This was not the case. Despite my explaining all of this, the editor who blocked me continued to revert and suggested that I was engaged in edit war, when he offered no explanation as to why he was violating Wikipedia policy with regards to the biographical article. I strongly disagree with this block and feel it is an abuse of power.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Edit warring is wrong no matter how right you are. See the warning you were given above, under #October 2019. – bradv🍁 00:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
While I agree, there seems to be no similar chiding of the other editor in question. It was he who changed the status quo of the article and continued to insist on it despite my clear explanations as to why it violated Wikipedia policy. And yet I am charged with edit warring. That hardly seems fair. I agree with you edit warring is not acceptable. But he did not want to bring up the issue on the talk page whatsoever, and continued to delete my messages on his talk page whenever I would try to explain myself or communicate with him. I still find this block on my account rather unfair. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have fixed the formatting of the appeal and I would also point out that the other party to this dispute has also been blocked for edit-warring in this case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
While I still contest this block, I apologize for reverting the previous editor's edits. I would like to know if such a situation happens in the future, how should I approach it? If someone does not want to discuss an edit on a talk page and deletes my messages on their talk page, what steps do you recommend I take? I am asking in all honest earnest.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Apoorva Iyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand edit warring is wrong. I want to know what to do in the future if such a situation should arise again Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In their unblock request the editor says "I want to know what to do in the future if such a situation should arise again", thereby indicating they do not know what to do if they find themselves in an edit war. The continuation of the block is, therefore, a non-punitive necessity for the protection of the project. Chetsford (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi, I realize that you have continued to keep my account blocked. I would like to know what to do should I encounter this situation again. I don't want to edit war. I know edit warring is wrong. If someone were adding edits and refusing to correspond via the Talk page of the subject in question and/or deleting my messages on their talk page, what are the appropriate steps to take? I am asking in all honesty. Tomorrow, when my account is unblocked, I don't want a similar situation occurring again and want to make sure I am in the right. I don't want to engage in edit wars and hope you can understand. Thank you. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me offering some unsolicited advice. First of all, I'd suggest that you carefully read WP:EW - there is some good advice in there for what to do if you are in a situation like that again. A good step to have taken would have been to leave a note on the article's talk page, rather than that of the user who reverted you. Users are permitted to remove other people's comments from their own talk pages, but they shouldn't remove good-faith contributions to article talk pages. If you'd explained why you wanted to make the change, other users who watch the page would have had the chance to discuss it, and hopefully a consensus would form - or, if not, you could explore Dispute resolution options. Just trying to reinstate your changes over and over isn't the way to go about things. As an aside, I'd point out that edit summaries are intended as a way to say what you are doing in the change - they're not really intended to be used to justify the change, or communicate with another editor you disagree with. I know that happens sometimes, but it's not ideal - that kind of communication is exactly what the article talk page is for. Hope that makes sense, and that it's helpful for when you're unblocked. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand what to do now. When my account becomes unblocked, I will post on the talk page of the subject being disputed. I will give a day's time at least for anyone to voice their objections, and I will provide all my citations per wikipedia regulations and source citations for why I believe the status quo is more appropriate. I hope this is the correct approach, and I really appreciate your advice.
- I'm glad you found it useful. Citing your sources and explaining your reasoning is definitely a good idea; I'd probably though that you leave it more than just a day before making your change, since you know that at least one person disagrees with it - personally, I'd give it a few days. After all - there's no deadline that the article needs to be 'finished' by. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: okay, the point is made, can I unblock this user now? Their behavior in the content dispute and in response to the block has been nothing but reasonable. I would have accepted where Chetsford declined, because "such a situation" is obviously not a declaration that they intend to edit war again. This situation they refer to was not even a legitimate content dispute. This editor correctly reverted an edit with a straightforward, policy-based reasoning that they explained in their edit summary, and continued to explain in each additional edit summary, and explained on the other user's talk page as well, getting their good faith messages deleted for no reason. I know "being right" is not an excuse to edit war, but when one party is acting correctly, in good faith, and going to great lengths to explain themselves, and the other party is just reverting them with no comment whatsoever and deleting their messages, that's something that needs to be taken into account, and I would say this user is more of a victim of disruptive editing than a threat to the project. I mean, I don't blame you for actioning FlightTime's AN3 report, not in the least, I trust FlightTime and I would have had no reason to believe that they were behaving problematically, and the technicality that "being right" doesn't matter still stands. But now that I've looked into this a bit, it looks like this user got unfairly railroaded by FlightTime and now we're just making them jump through hoops by nitpicking their wording. FlightTime's actions here on the other hand are very alarming and warrant further investigation beyond the procedural 3RR block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for unblocking me. I will follow through with what I said in my previous post and add a section to the talk page of John Leguizamo along wth my reasons and evidence for why I don't think "Colombian-born" should be added in the lead, and give people a chance to voice their objections and provide reasoning if they have it. If nobody has voiced their opinion in some days and/or their opinion does not fit with wikipedia guidelines, I hope I would be in the right to remove said disputed phrase from the lead. Thanks.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hogwash
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padma_Lakshmi&oldid=prev&diff=933108468
The why is it on practially every other person born elsewhere but now in America or Britain. And wikipedians wonder why wiki has such a lousy reputation. Another case of wiki hypocrisy and double standards. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure if I understand your question, but I direct you towards Wikipedia's regulations on biography leads as stated in WP:Ethnicity. It's pretty clear that the nationality under which the individual became notable is the one included in the lead, and previous nationalities, ethnicities, and/or place of birth are not included unless that is directly relevant to that individual's notability. I am not sure what "hypocrisy" you are referring to, but I have no control over what every other article lead says, and correct whichever ones I have some background or interest in and/or come across. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nice attemnpt at dodging the issue. And thanks for proving wiki hypocrisy and double standards. Good riddance to it all.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- How pleasant. Have a good day. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nice attemnpt at dodging the issue. And thanks for proving wiki hypocrisy and double standards. Good riddance to it all.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Template:Z33
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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Template:Z33
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Template:Z33
Sorry, but you have moved into controversial areas and must be careful. O3000 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Apoorva Iyer! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 90 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 14:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Abbreviating United States of America or USA
You wrote in an Edit Comment: ("US" is not the official/proper name for the country of the United States of America)
But it is the official and proper way to abbreviate this per the Wikipedia MoS, see:
Abbreviations
Write US or U.S., but not USA. Use US not U.S. in an article using UK, PRC, etc. read more ...
Just a reminder. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░