Jump to content

User talk:Loveall.human

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Loveall.human, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 09:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 2020

[edit]

Please read wp:brd and wp:ONUS, if you are undone, you are the one who is meant to make a case for why your edits should stand. There were a number of issues with your recent additions, to many to list in an edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slatersteven:, The added massacres and riots are well documented, historic incidents related to the topic. Every single riot that took in Germany during Holocaust gives a lesson to humanity to prevent such in future. I agree that if its overwhelming there can also be a new wiki page for a list for minor incidents from here on. The ones currently added are the significant ones. May I know which one is 'alleged' that justified to removed many well researched sections of massacres and lynch deaths?Loveall.human (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Make a case at the article talk page, so others can chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay bruv @Slatersteven:. Meanwhile will restore the content so far available (which are well researched). If any specific incident doesn't meet the scholarly verifiable standard feel free to highlight/modify/remove it. Thanks.Loveall.human (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, read wp:brd you do not restore, you leave until you get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If people keep reverting your additions, then restoring is edit-warring.
Try putting the addition on the article talk page, and then explain why you think it should be in the article, and why you think the objections (if you understand what they are) are mistaken. Try to be brief but not cryptic. So when you write something, see if there are redundant words or sentences. Also ask yourself, would someone who has just seen this issue, know what I am talking about.
Sometimes what seems unimportant to you, seems important to others (or vice versa). They have a different perspective (or different knowledge).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Toddy1:. Noted. Loveall.human (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Speaktruth29 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Speaktruth29. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Loveall.human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Callanecc: Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.

Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?

and updating the section that he created on Sudarshan News which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.[reply]

His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.

and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.

In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If you make another block, please don't copy-paste things that other people said into it, and please don't overuse boldface. This just makes your request messy and difficult to read. Use a diff if you need to refer to something another editor said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 @Callanecc:, a follow up on the above unblock request please. Loveall.human (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks it says: To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here ~~~~}} So pasting a new unblock request above a discussion of the previous unblock request is inappropriate.
The section marked WP:SOCKBLOCK talks about this type of case. The blocking admin is never the same person as the reviewing admin. Callanecc is allowed to comment. But he/she will not be the administrator who decides on your request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above was posted at 06:02, 13 December 2020 and is different from the post of 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)!-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Loveall.human: Have a look at [1] I have reformatted your text and put an introduction on it. If I were you I would delete the above request, and paste the reformatted version on at the bottom of the page with whatever amendments you want to make. Huge amounts of bold text is off-putting. But it must be at the bottom of the page and needs to have to correct date.
The nowiki thing was to get round the problem that the template is blocked on the sandbox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of unblock request of 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Loveall.human, you were blocked because it was believed that the Loveall.human account was being operated by same person who operated the following accounts: (1) Speaktruth29, (2) Truth4Upeople (3) RajeshRameshSuresh, (4) CrackFakeNews, (5) WikiIndia1312.
Is your account being operated by the same person who operated accounts (1) to (5)?
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Toddy1:!. The answer is no, no idea about the other accounts. The challenge now is behavioral evidence information, not sure how to sit through and prove (I need to check about it when free). Accusing is easy, proving its not related seems hard. Wiki itself seems quite challenging to learn and use in leisure to contribute, let alone sifting through infinite blocking with few edits :| Loveall.human (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you withdraw your unblock request. The reasons you gave, are the reasons that matter to you, but are not relevant to the case. Read WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Then, when you are ready submit an unblock request that focusses on the sockpuppet allegation.
  • Part of the evidence against you in the sockpuppet investigation was that both you and accounts (1) to (5) misused the minor edits checkbox. You need to explain why you did this up to 8 October, and that you stopped after you were warned about it.
  • Look at edit summaries and compare your behaviour with those of accounts (1) to (5).
  • Look at the types of edit you made and compare your behaviour with those of accounts (1) to (5).
Be completely honest, even when it makes you look bad.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Toddy1: will read more technical material on how to do all this stuff in free time. Honestly, this is soo complex and demotivating in the minimal free time in life. Just noticed that the one who complained has history of pro ruling party's right wing edit activities, and he has just bunched a set of different accounts that is in conflict with his view as 'Sockpuppet' in the complaint and just like that wham an indefinite block! I empathize those other accounts who might have given up instead of going through all these complex steps, see for example I notice that the other person has appealed similarly on possibly admin's mistake. Is there no regulation for the the one who complains for stifling users contribution to Wikipedia with all such sophisticated methods? If one is suspected of sockpuppet merely on some random similarities, may be at least there should be a warning to the user to get an explanation first. Infinite block just like that and many days to prove that it is a huge mistake by the admin by non-sophisticated beginner user is so painful especially when one is volunteering in one's free time. Sorry for expressing the disappointment with you. Really appreciate your guidance. Loveall.human (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A common mistake in unblock requests is to attack other users. Never ever do it. It does not help you; it hurts your case by providing extra reasons for blocking you.
  • Aman.kumar.goel provided behavioural evidence. The person who judged the evidence was Callanecc. The behavioural evidence was enough to justify using the checkuser tool to gather electronic evidence.
  • Callanecc found electronic evidence that RajeshRameshSuresh, CrackFakeNews, and WikiIndia1312 were the same person. This probably meant that they were using the same computer or iPhone for their edits.
  • WikiIndia1312 made two unblock requests: [2], [3] but neither of these addressed the electronic evidence that showed Callanecc that WikiIndia1312 was operating at least two other accounts.
    (There was once a case where two people in the same family were using the same computer to edit Wikipedia. Electronic evidence confirmed this. One of the users appealed. He/she provided an explanation for the electronic evidence, and behavioural evidence showed that the editors were different people - so the users were unblocked.)
  • No electronic evidence was found linking you with the other accounts. The only evidence was behavioural. Your appeal needs to address the behavioural issues.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Toddy1:. Oh, I was not aware of checkuser tool, I take back the attack on that user in that case (you can check the record, I have no history of attacking any user before except now for my account being insinuated for this sock puppet infinite block issue). I am not related to any of those accounts or any sock puppet (which is an insulting attack on me). With a millions of users on earth the possibility two minds having similar political views or editing a wiki page is possible but how to prove one is not a sock puppet by behavior is now the challenge. In the initial days when edited I was not clear about the minor to major difference, so added as minor change. But once mentored, I stopped it, now that past beginner edits are shown as behavioral evidence :(. Loveall.human (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Toddy1:, it takes a while to learn the system here. I respect the mentoring and guidance when done a mistake by us noobs (especially when it is not intentional) to correct. Have updated the unblock request, hope its useful. So many hours gone because of one guilt by association complaint, hope this will be a good learning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveall.human (talk • contribs) 06:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Check1

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Loveall.human. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Check1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Loveall.human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. I have no idea about the other accounts.

I have put comments made at sockpuppet investigation for Speaktruth29 in bullet points and my responses to them below:

  • Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4]
Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed non-stop here to edit Wiki every single day despite work, travel and vacations.
  • Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6]
Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?
This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence of similar interest.
  • His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10]
Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.
  • and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12]
Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.

In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on your response above regarding the specific behavioural evidence in the SPI I am comfortable that, on balance, it is more likely that you are not Speaktruth29. Given that, the original reason for the block no longer applies an can be lifted. I would echo what GeneralNotability said below about other issues in your editing potentially leading to another block and being conscious of that in your further editing would be wise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Check1

[edit]

Hello, Loveall.human. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Check1".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 - what to do now

[edit]
Hi @Toddy1:, I followed your precious guidance, still no response. Since, November an account is falsely blocked as sockpuppet indefinitely with no prior opportunity to consult/defend from the user. What next can be done to address this mistake? Thanks for your inputs. Loveall.human (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle reminder/followup @Toddy1:. Loveall.human (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Please can you or one of your colleagues take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Loveall.human#February 2021 unblock request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, thoughts here? On the one hand, I'm not convinced this is Speaktruth based on behavioral evidence + your CU findings, on the other, this sure looks like someone who is only interested in pushing specific controversies. Frankly, I expect that if unblocked, they'd end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines, but I don't like moving the goalposts and saying "well, you're right that your block was incorrect but we're changing the reason you were blocked." GeneralNotability (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Toddy1:, @GeneralNotability:, @Callanecc:. Gentle reminder on this. Edit warring had not been my intention when I was restoring section blanking, as I was not experienced. Just like many were my naive beginnings in Wikipedia. Some wiki pages were like fan boy pages which did not capture historical events, which I was trying to add. This well documented, scholarly backed and cited inclusion becomes 'controversy' were getting removed by anonymous IP addresses which were restored. I respect the academic ritual needed here to try to bring to consensus and had already corrected my ways in my last few edits. However, this suspension has not been for that, nor was any warning given as I had already corrected my way. The crucial part is here there has been a mistake since November 2020, where an account is locked without hearing at the other end on the wrong accusation that is sockpuppet. How would this shortcoming and the mistake by admin, be addressed where similar to my case any one could possibly be framed in this manner?. Thanks, appreciate for hearing me out. Loveall.human (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Callanecc shows that his/her last contribution was 25 January 2021. He/she has taken long wikibreaks before.[4]-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Toddy1:, @GeneralNotability:, @Callanecc:. In this case, what is to be done now?. This is the 'only account' that I use in leisure which has been suspended with false allegation. Would really appreciate to address it at the earliest. Also, please help to understand how such a mistake is possible here, especially outright suspending without hearing from the account or given a warning beforehand or any other checks and balances. Loveall.human (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle reminder/followup @Toddy1:, @GeneralNotability:, @Callanecc:. Loveall.human (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi team, @Toddy1:, @GeneralNotability:, @Callanecc:. Loveall.human One more thing recently, I see that I am able to make changes like undo/restore etc based on recent trials (check history) and I see its working! Is this a bug or the block is removed? As the user page still shows this account is supposed to be blocked (until resolved). Please confirm, if blocked I don't want to make any changes unless it is made clear. Loveall.human (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've unblocked your account based on your appeal above so you are now able to edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Callanecc:, @Toddy1:. As there is no course qualification, I am also learning Wiki on the way to be a better editor. For any indefinite suspension action, would appreciate if any warning in future. Meanwhile, please do find how to avoid this particular false 'sockpuppet' case in future. For almost more than five months, this account had to suffer to prove innocence (as a beginner very hard to even understand the layered info to dig and prove) while allegation has been made to cost so many months of time to bring appeal to justice. I respect the process which is essential for Wikipedia to keep it as authentic and healthy as possible.
  • Meanwhile would really ask how this would not happen in future where an account co-incidentally sharing same nature of viewpoints in a page becomes enough evidence for indefinite block?
  • Apart over 5 months lost in this for no mistake of mine, the past edits that were well cited and was essential was also removed in the name of allleged sockpuppet. For example here. Now, would it be the one who alleged, remove the edits to restore them for the mistake? (If the edits are not well cited, well written etc is okay but section like this which even caused international attention and well cited has been removed in the name of sockpuppet). If not, it would mean back to square one of discussion, consensus, edits without breaking current content etc.
  • This has been an quite unfair experience to go through :( That alleging, removing edits is easier than proving innocence spanning so many months and have to restore matured edits now (if time or motivation allows)
In no means, am blaming any individual here but scope to improve the process. Hope you understand the request here and appreciate your response or mentor me on this. Thanks.Loveall.human (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give some advice? Drop it and move on. I could explain why, but it would be a lot of work, and would serve no useful purpose. Nobody has entirely clean hands. And those who think their own hands are the most clean, are usually those who are least self-aware.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other piece of advice is to try editing articles on issues that you do not feel strongly about. It is easier to be detached and edit from a neutral point of view about such issues. With time you will develop skills and editing behaviours that you need.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree on the second part of advice. For the first part was not seeking a courteous apology, was humbly suggesting a feedback in process so that in the future, at the least this does not happen to someone else or understand the pattern that caused the misleading to the admins. I have to move on indeed :( Thank you. Loveall.human (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

[edit]

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 200K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(14d) |archive = User talk:User talk:Loveall.human/Archive %(counter)d }} {{archives}}

I suggest that you set up an archive bot for your talk page. To do that, just paste the above at the top of this page.

This will put old sections about your block in an archive. If anyone accuses you have been a sockpuppet, you can point them at the archive, and say that admins accepted that you were not a sock. But it means that you can move on.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

With @Capitals00

[edit]

I have reverted your edits on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, Jai (actor), and other pages. You need to read a few policies:-

  • WP:BLPCAT: A person who is alive must be the one to confirm whether he was converted from one religion to another.
  • WP:CIRCULAR: Don't use Wikipedia links as a reference.
  • WP:RS: Source needs to be reliable.
  • WP:V: Source must confirm that conversion took place from one religion to another. If a source only say "I converted to xxx" than saying "I converted from xxx to xxx" then don't add it.
  • WP:OR: Don't use your own experience to add what isn't supported by the source. It means that you should avoid adding names that you believe to have been a Hindu and converted to Islam but the source does not say it.

Given you were already warned above to tread carefully, you should be indeed very careful. Capitals00 (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Capitals00
  • WP:BLPCAT: A person who is alive must be the one to confirm whether he was converted from one religion to another. - Yes, it is mentioned for Jai (actor) with reputed news articles and is a known one in Tamil Nadu. Yet that article has been reverted without any discussion or checking the citation. Why?
  • WP:CIRCULAR: Don't use Wikipedia links as a reference. - The list already had such references before the edits were added so followed that edit history (as it was easy with one link). Noted however to avoid that and copy the citations from source Wiki articles.
  • WP:RS: Source needs to be reliable. - May I know which particular one has unreliable sources? Those specific entries in the table can be removed to put for discussion. Why all the series of edits been removed?
  • WP:V: Source must confirm that conversion took place from one religion to another. If a source only say "I converted to xxx" than saying "I converted from xxx to xxx" then don't add it. - Most of them have confirmed, names changes, historical personalities. If something is questionable such entries can be discussed or those specific entries can be removed.
  • WP:OR: Don't use your own experience to add what isn't supported by the source. It means that you should avoid adding names that you believe to have been a Hindu and converted to Islam, but the source does not say it. - Again, need example of which specific one, so that I would want to research and remove if it is not. Again, why all entries have been removed?
  • Given you were already warned above to tread carefully, you should be indeed very careful. - Yes, noted on the concerns. This is the first comment about edits of that page. What is 'you should be indeed very careful'? - Loveall.human (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Capitals00:, please help to respond for above questions. Let me know which needs strong citation, those can be marked or removed accordingly? Will restore and add the citations from original wiki pages instead of using Wiki links as references. Okay? Loveall.human (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With @Toddy1

[edit]
I checked the first name on the list that was reverted. The list was List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. The first name was: Dr. [[Periyar Dasan|Abdullah (Periyar Dasan)]]
  • What on earth do you think you are doing rendering his name as Abdullah (Periyar Dasan)?
The text was: Professor, scholar, eminent speaker, psychologist, activist, national award winning film's actor from Tamil Nadu.[1] He propagated atheism and rationalist ideologies for most part of his life, and later converted to Islam.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b "Periyardasan takes final bow after multiple roles". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  • It would help a lot if you completed citation templates competently. Automatic tools do this badly. The New Indian Express is a reliable source. You should use {{cite news not {{cite web and mark it as work=[[The New Indian Express]] not |website=The New Indian Express
  • The New Indian Express article cited does not have an explicit statement that the subject was ever a Hindu.
  • The New Indian Express article cited does however state "In 1991, Periyardasan embraced Buddhism" and "he embraced Islam as his way of life on March 11, 2010 during a visit to Mecca and rechristened his name as ‘Abdulla Periyardasan’."
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second name on the reverted list was Abdulla Gandhi (Harilal Gandhi). Please render names in normal English. It would help a lot to use the common English-language name for a person
The "citation" was to a Wikipedia article: <ref>{{Citation|title=Harilal Gandhi|date=2021-03-31|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harilal_Gandhi&oldid=1015267052|work=Wikipedia|language=en|access-date=2021-04-20}}</ref> This is completely unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Toddy1
I checked the first name on the list that was reverted. The list was List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. The first name was: Dr. [[Periyar Dasan|Abdullah (Periyar Dasan)]]
  • What on earth do you think you are doing rendering his name as Abdullah (Periyar Dasan)? - He was known popularly as Periyar Dasan before, then when he accepted Islam he called himself as Abdullah. There are videos of himself about this as well as his testimony on how born as a Shaivite he explored Atheism, Buddhism and finally chose Islam as his way of life. To make it clear the previous names before embracing Islam has been placed inside the brackets.
The text was: Professor, scholar, eminent speaker, psychologist, activist, national award-winning film's actor from Tamil Nadu. He propagated atheism and rationalist ideologies for most part of his life, and later converted to Islam.
  • It would help a lot if you completed citation templates competently. Automatic tools do this badly. The New Indian Express is a reliable source. You should use {{cite news not {{cite web and mark it as work=[[The New Indian Express]] not |website=The New Indian Express - Okay, this is new learning for me, I use the automatic tools as it is simple.
  • The New Indian Express article cited does not have an explicit statement that the subject was ever a Hindu. - As stated above, there are videos of himself about this as well as his testimony on how born as a Shaivite he explored Atheism, Buddhism and finally chose Islam as his way of life. By document as well, he was Hindu until he embraced Islam while he was personally exploring Atheism and Buddhism. Since, he was not a born Buddhist thought this list is where he fits, and his videos are more about his past Hindu experiences than Buddhist experience which was a short span of time in his exploration.
  • The New Indian Express article cited does however state "In 1991, Periyardasan embraced Buddhism" and "he embraced Islam as his way of life on March 11, 2010 during a visit to Mecca and rechristened his name as ‘Abdulla Periyardasan’." - Same as above
  • The second name on the reverted list was Abdulla Gandhi (Harilal Gandhi). Please render names in normal English. It would help a lot to use the common English-language name for a person - As this page is a specific list of who embraced Islam, thought would be meaningful and useful on previous and later names after embracing Islam.
  • The "citation" was to a Wikipedia article: <ref>{{Citation|title=Harilal Gandhi|date=2021-03-31|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harilal_Gandhi&oldid=1015267052|work=Wikipedia|language=en|access-date=2021-04-20}}</ref> This is completely unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC) - This one is a valid criticism. Was not intentional, as responded back to Capitals00 above this thing would be edited as appropriate. I thought instead of pasting again the set of citations from the relevant wiki pages, how about direct to that wiki page itself which has ample sources. That was lazy and unacceptable, so will change accordingly.[reply]
  • Thanks for all the feedbacks. Loveall.human (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy WP:VERIFY. Please read it. If there are some sources that say that someone was a Hindu, you need to cite them if you want to use information from them.
Wikipedia has a policy WP:COMMONNAME. So, in a list type article, use the common English-language name. If the subject has some other name as well, then use the common name and then explain that subject is also known as or prefers to be known as..., for example:
Harilal Gandhi (also known as Abdulla Gandhi)[1]
A citation would be needed to a reliable source that explicitly supported the statement that a was also known as b, or became known as b, or whatever.
If you are writing stuff for other people to read, you need to write it so that they can understand it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Toddy1, noted. Thanks for the inputs, will read and update the table accordingly. 👍 Loveall.human (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the references. Hope it helps. Bringtar (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1 I tried to improve it. Can you please have a look now? I will appreciate your feedback please. Bringtar (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Hi, hope you are doing good. I saw your comment in my report thread and I appreciate it because what you told is absolutely correct and can be easily validated if anyone checks their editing history. These editors seem to have a vendetta to avoid editors from expanding those articles. Anyway, I am messaging you here to request you if you can get time to implement the same format in List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism like you did in List of converts to Islam from Hinduism? Or you can point me to the steps to do it? Thanks again, --Bringtar (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, thanks. Hope you are doing good too. Thanks, only concern is they certainly have 'good' knowledge on Wiki policies/process etc., but utilized destructively for abusing editors creating bureaucratic mess succeeding in keeping articles from maturing to push Hindutva far-right view which is expliciti from their toxic behaviors. It's alright to have opposite view, but why bully any other edits when well researched is just sad. It takes many days together to research such bulk edits after sifting through books and sources; and they just like that remove single stroke without proper discussion or improvising but obsessed with threat, block, sock labels etc. Recently, have got demotivated with such bullying being allowed to prevent authentic growth of articles, that I don't do much wiki edits like before. Moreover, I get very few hours in weekends here and there to make any changes at all.
Okay, coming to the formatting, I used the visual editor (Insert→Table) which can help insert tables/rows/columns, and then copied and pasted the country flag templates accordingly (to fill that flag template). Let me know if it was useful. Thank you for your genuine contributions to Wikipedia. Have a nice day.
Loveall.human (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@@Bringtar:, also noticed that you are under investigation for sock here, where you can comment from your side if you are not a sock. FYI. Loveall.human (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@@Loveall.human:, like I said they seem to have a vendetta because you will see same violations in List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. I do not know what to do about that investigation because it is filed with lies only. I already posted my comment there and you should do too. Also, thanks so much for the help in formatting. I will try it and wish you too a very nice day. Bringtar (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bringtar. Yes, until recently I don't know who you were. By default, I assume all are 'good' comrades in humanity with various views in making Wiki a better place with proper sources and research (unless proved otherwise of trolls). Here, such folks are abusing admin process and knowledge to force fit to anyone as 'sock', threaten with block/ban etc. for far-right wing POV push. In this case, List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism articles have been stuck with such bullying for years. If any inaccuracy, that specific item can be improved or removed. Exactly as you pointed for the other lists there is no such bullying, why only converts from Hinduism is being made so hard with mobbing around with unhealthy threatening, sock reporting and banning etc. is making very unhealthy to grow. This reminds me of how so many individuals frequently reported of being lynched by armed mobs to death with frivolous excuse of 'anti-Nationals', eating beef, Jai Sri Ram, 'rice bag' Christian, Corona 'Jihad', Urban Naxal etc labels by far right extremism groups who get rid of anyone don't fit a particular narrative. I hope other admins give a careful look through such sock report abuses on me to help make Wiki a better place, rather than such knowledgeable ones abusing for sledgehammering others in not allowing specific pages to grow. As of now, very demotivated to go frequently go through the bureaucratic chaos to keep on proving that one is not a sock, by such wiki bullying. Loveall.human (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"@Loveall.human, I couldn't agree more with you on this. I am sure the Wikipedia admins will understand this to make it free from any biases. Bringtar (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental ping

[edit]

Sorry I accidentally pinged you to my sandbox when I was saving a modification to my post I was abandoning. I'm not asking for your attention at my sandbox. I did intentionally ping you to ANI as I was replying to something you said. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne:I see that discussion is not there in the ANI page. Would love to see what is the conclusion. Most importantly, I am interested in what is the criteria and how to improve. Just like Malaysia or Maldives or Bangladesh or Indonesia, MILLIONS of natives of India too embraced Islam/Christianity in history (They did not migrate from Egypt or England). Just adding a few with enough sources has become so problematic. It's very good for quality, but should not be unfairly discriminatory, applying such conditions for specific lists only (Converted to XYZ from Hinduism). Thanks. Loveall.human (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of conversions

[edit]

I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:Thank you very much for your contribution. I stopped editing at the first instant of mass reverts itself. It almost feels like Converts to XYZ from Hinduism articles are like gated with sock/block threatening accounts, than having a productive discussion about the entries, causing such articles becoming stalled for years. With MILLIONS of natives in India who have embraced Christianity/Islam, even adding just five members with ample sources invites such troubles. Loveall.human (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

[edit]

I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loveall.human, users who have interacted with you are likely to have your talk pages on their watchlist, so they know about the above message. You do not need to bring the matter to their attention. Canvassing is not a good idea. It massively devalues the comments of anyone who writes on your behalf.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement say "Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks."
  • Aman.kumar.goel's statement - 370 words
  • Toddy1's statement - 220 words
  • Loveall.human's statement- 1,039 words
By the way, you need to sign it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the guidance. Sorry, that I did not pay attention to that. Loveall.human (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will check in the later tonight to reduce the words. Loveall.human (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loveall.human&oldid=1036704365"