User talk:Neon 114

Maharaj-ji

Please do not bold this word in Neem Karoli Baba. Our Manual of style says that we only bold the name of the subject. We do not bold titles. Maharaj-ji is a title, not a name. It is not unique to the subject: many other gurus are also called this. So we do not bold it. Typically, we only bold alternate names if they are a redirect to the article. But Maharaj-ji, being a title applied to multiple gurus, has it's own article. Rule of thumb - if it has its own article then we don't bold it in any other article. We only bold unique alternate names that only apply to the subject and are redirects to that subject. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to write it in italics as Maharaj ji is word in Hindi, it by mistake got bold. Neon 114 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe single quotes are correct, because we are saying that people called him that. And it's two words in Hindi. And you should really read up on edit warring. Skyerise (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: Okay but one of the sub-heading in the Biography section of the article have mentioned him with Maharaj-ji (in italics). Should we change that too. Neon 114 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you unnecessarily changed it. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it and that is why I am asking if we should revert that also Neon 114 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added back without copyrighted material Neon 114 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]