User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 3

July 2017 - Sept 2017

Diplomat!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Keep up the good work.

Nice to see calm guys are still here. You deserve a barnstar for tackling the situation here and here. Walter West (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

---

@Walter West: Thanks a lot! But I sort of failed when the edit war took place, and I didnt know about it. Thanks a again. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Earliest Greek democracies

I think this is a worthwhile topic partly because other articles about ancient Greek democracy on Wikipedia (e.g. the History of Democracy article I linked the new article to) treat Athens as the earliest, which is not the case. The notice you posted says I should cite a secondary source, but I have: Eric Robinson's book is a full-length, scholarly treatment of exactly this topic.Cleisthenes2 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cleisthenes2: Hi, I apologise for the confusion.
I also thought I already posted a message on your talkpage. The notice says the article needs secondary sources to establish its notability. Kindy read, or skim through this. Also, the tone of the article is not encyclopaedic (this was supposed to go in the intended message). That notice doesnt mean the article will be deleted. I removed the notice. I will try to contibute in improving the article. Thanks for creating the article, and thanks again, for contacting me.

If you have any doubt/question regarding wikipedia in future, please feel free to ask me. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I could add a column to the table with some primary references if you think that would help. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For both your vigilance when you were worried about promotional EL's and for your currant (yikes the spell check red line doesn't appear if my booboo is still a word) work in restoring them. Your efforts here at WikiP (in this as well as other editing) are much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hi. Thanks a lot. In my one reply on Oshawah's talkpage that didnt go through: thanks a lot for letting me know about my mistake politely, without biting. :-)

And i apologise again. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: PS: Why are you comparing my work to a fruit? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all U. As to my spelling error all I can say is you are a grape Wikipedian. HeeHee. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week!! MarnetteD|Talk 03:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: lol. Thanks, see you around :-)
—usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy-vio

After skimming through the contrib history of the user, doubts of Jupitus Smart seem to be right. I first neglected it cuz I thought the user is a journalist, and this might be his area of interest. But after Jupitus Smart pointed out, it looks like paid editing. For the same purpose he contacted me, Boleyn, and Jupitus as well. There are some users with such persistency/consistency, but the combination of all the facts is surely suspicious. It is possible that the user is somehow in touch with the subject directly, or inderectly (through agent/PRO). —usernamekiran(talk) 07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: your feedback will be appreciated a lot :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 07:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jangalkanya Setu

Jangalkanya Setu is a bridge built on the Subarnorekha River of the state of West Bengal, India. This bridge is the second long bridge in West Bengal, which is located in Jhargram district. This is why I request the article not to be removed.User:খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@খাঁ শুভেন্দু: Hi. I will work on the article, and try to avoid the deletion. Would you please help me a little regarding it? I cant understand what this statement is about:

On this day, about 95 kilometers of road to reach Kharagpur via Gobibalppur from Nayagram.To reach Kharagpur via the Nayagram-Keshiariyi, it is only 45 km to reach the 1.47 km long junctional bridge.

Would you please put it in other words? thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

DURAND ECHEVERRIA

I added more references, as per your brief (terse?, non-specific?, unprescriptive?) request.

Also added a very summary mention of his late-life activities, based on (and referring to) his obit. in the Brown Alumni organ.

Hoping we're copacetic... Ethnic laundry (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ethnic laundry: hello, and thanks for adding references. My request to you was precise, and polite. I suggest you to read WP:ACADEMICS. If some other editor than me had reviewed the article, then the article would have got "notability" tag for sure, or even a deletion request. I would also like to tell you content is not notability. Thanks again, and happy editing. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Your request was indeed precise and polite. I appreciate that it assumed I understood what I was doing, and conveyed no animus toward a specific choice I had made (belive me, that happens). I was concerned the abbreviated tone could reflect negative vibes toward some transgression on my part, but it appears that was not a problem. And - as I said - I hope I satisfied your request. If you felt my response was hostile or flippant - be sure that was not my intent/ and THANK YOU.

Notability: Echeverria's work is widely used as a source for historians dealing with the development of French-American relations (Google returned hundreds of mentions, although some may be duplicates); this during the era between the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. He also is recipient of several prestigious honors with grants attached, and in addition was an effective administrator (admittedly a sideline) for an Ivy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethnic laundry (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on page

Thanks for your advice! I'm a bit busy right now but I will be sure to do that as soon as I can. Benton stratoc (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

declined speedy delete, invalid criterion

I have declined the speedy deletion of Baramulla–Kupwara line and Anantnag–Pahalgam line. The reasons you gave for deletion might be valid for WP:AFD or WP:PROD. The reasons aren't valid speedy deletion criterion. Please read through the last link and only use valid speedy deletion reasons. ~ GB fan 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: hi. Thanks for a non-bity, and an informative comment. It is very appriciated
I nominated them through speedy because I thought it was well beyond doubt. I will go through AfD to get opinions from other editors. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject OC

Hi Northamerica1000, I made a sample template for the project. You can take a loot at it here: User:Usernamekiran/Sandbox5.
Kindly let me know what you think about it. Also, do you know how to use a bot to tag talkpages of related articles? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm working on entirely other matters right now, but will make a note to get back to this, as well as Template:WikiProject Organized Crime. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Northamerica1000: Thanks a lot for the reply :-) There is no hurry, kindly take your time. I will work on other stuff meanwhile :-)
  —usernamekiran(talk) 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template relevancy

If you’re going to use a template on a usertalk, please make sure the template is relevant, which in my case it absolutely was not. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was relevant, experienced IP user. You should consider creating an account. :-)
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating or using an account is an individual choice with no incorrect answer. But please expalin how a “content removal” template could possibly be relevant to adding a hyphenated suffix. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIR. I normally wouldn’t make such a request per WP:BRICKS, but you doubled down on your mistake, insisting that the addition of content is actually the removal of content, which is in fact exactly what your edit was. Your response to being called out for having your facts wrong was to insist you were right without first checking your facts. Don’t do that; it’s irresponsible. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After reading your comment, I looked through the article's history. And you are right. Actually, I never intended to undo that edit. I use a custom script to patrol recent changes, and it must have had a glitch. Even though it rarely happens, it happens. I apologise for the confusion. And yes, I am aware that creating or using an account is upto the choice of the editor. That's why I specifically used the words "should consider". Happy editing! :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR questions

Just curious... why you reverted this edit? I found the BOT helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi ThatsYou
I am not sure which BOT you are referring to. Are you talking about the "move to draft tool"? One part of the revert was about "there are plans to", the current version states "a new feature of the curation tool will enable". I reverted the previous version as per WP:CRYSTAL.

The option of moving an article to draft should be used as a last resort. In most of the cases the article is either salvageable, or good for speedy deleteion. So there are extremely rare circumsatances when this option is used. And it should remain that way. Mentioning it on "front page" might incease its use, leading to multiple articles going in draft space. So I think it should be mentioned somewhere else, but not on the front page. :-)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No, actually it was this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Hi, I think you want to ask about redirect, right? In that case, User:MusikBot/TopPageReviewers/Report has been moved to Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new page reviewers, as per this edit by MusikAnimal. There is no difference at all, just the address for reports has been changed. ;-)
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for taking the time to explain, Kiran. It is much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure Atsme. If you have any doubt/query in future, please dont hesitate at all to contact me. See you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 21:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

*Comment-I would like to add, that while reversing an edit, please go through the contents. Also, that the page was moved--is not a reason for outright reversion of an edit; you could have apptly fixed the target yourself! Also, WP:CRYSTAL is not generally valid in WP:Project Space .Further,I choose to change the tone tone since the WMF has been apparently withholding a simple req. for long (See this) and there's no point in ushering in false hopes!anyway, please take a look at the current state of the page.Thanks! Winged Blades ^Godric 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime

Please don't change capitalization in stuff at this time. I had some problems with this, but got it together. Changing the caps is breaking things (e.g. diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Northamerica1000: Hi. Sorry, I hadnt realised you had moved the page back to crime with a lowercase C. I have two editors in mind for now. I am currently working on Sam the Cigar, while doing that, I will have to go through the history of related articles to see recurring editors to invite. But this might take 2-3 days. Thanks again. I cant thank you enough lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'll try to fix any problems as I find them. Things are shaping up, though. Thanks for working on the project! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Zookeeper

Hi Usernamekiran,

Thank you very much for taking an interest in the The Zookeeper (2001 film) article. The article definitely needs a lot of work. I will certainly go and expand the secondary sources. There would also be a number of red links as well. Just one small favor, would you be able to upload a movie poster for the Zookeeper film. There is one on the IMDb page but the Wikipedia image uploading process is really Byzantine. It's not like Wookieepedia where it's relatively easy to upload provided you follow the regulations. Will certainly try to address the issues that you raised. Andykatib 23:58, June 24, 2017 (UTC)

• @Andykatib: Hi. Thanks for responding, and for creating the article too. I will certainly look into the poster task. But kindly give me 2-3 days for that. Also, even though it would be good work on the sources issue, there is no hurry about it. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Usernamekiran, thank you so much for your help. And may the Force be with you. Andykatib 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Some invitations sent

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Some invitations sent. More FYI. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Krivine machine

You put the tag unreferenced on the article Krivine machine. It is a good joke. I appreciate. --PIerre.Lescanne (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)::

Hi PIerre.Lescanne

No, it isnt a joke. The references as per you definition are actually "notes". I edited that. If you take a look at the bottom of the article, you will see two different sections by the name "notes", and "references". And as there are no references, the references section is empty. Ergo, the unreferenced tag.

All we have to do is, find 2-3 WP:RS about Krivine machine. You should also take a look at WP:PSTS. And thanks for taking this light-heartedly. If you have any doubts-queries, please feel free to contact me. :-)

—usernamekiran(talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking in, it seems that the items on the bibliography section are actually general references. Some other WPs, like the frWP, often use references section to mean references for specific points,and bibliography to mean references about the entire contents. That seems to have beeen the case here. The unreferenced tag was therefore never appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@PIerre.Lescanne: Hi. I apologise for the confusion. When I tagged the page, I thought I added "refimprove" tag. When you contacted me here, I thought you got confused between refimprove and unreferenced, sorry about that. After reading your comment here, I skimmed through the article before replying you; at that time I overlooked the tag. That was my bad. I apologise for it.
Thanks a lot for pointing it out DGG, I already updated the tag before posting this reply. Again, I apologise to both of you; I will try my best never to repeat such a mistake again. Thanks again.
—usernamekiran(talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Vaibhav Chhaya

sir, recently I created page Vaibhav Chhaya a article of Indian poet. I am new about this english wiki. so help me for improve quality of this article, for avoid delete. प्रसाद साळवे 06:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by प्रसाद साळवे (talk • contribs)

Science and technology in Turkmenistan

Thanks for your review. I have deleted the part on rule of law but there is a logic in keeping some information on governance issues, as governance affects science and technology, as does the socio-economic climate (and vice versa). I have created a lot of science and technology by country pages which all begin with a short explanation of the socio-economic context in the country. This part summarizes very briefly the country's socio-economic context (main industries, infrastructure projects, etc), internet access, trends with regard to university student rolls, etc. In a nutshell, there is method behind my approach. I hope I have convinced you.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Susan Schneegans: Hi. I read the article carefully again. I think you are right. Kindly contribute to the article as per your instincts. These are not serious issues, so some other editor might improve the article appropriately. I have also added it to my watchlist. I will contribute to it if possible. If you have any problem/doubts/queries, please free to ask me, or any other experienced user. Thanks again, and happy editing

—usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Spam

Actually that last article, Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd, is not only a G11 entirely but the username has strong suggestions of an undisclosed paid employee; therefore enough to policy violations in the page. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SwisterTwister. I am from India, and I am very well aware of that company. It has a huge customer-base in India. A simple image search might convince you about that. The creator definitely has COI, but I dont think the article is spam. Thanks for the tip though :)
I will add appropriate tags/notices on article, and user. Thanks again. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 06:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I see; also, about Emakina Group, I believe this would actually be acceptable as A7 given the claims are simply not significant themselves. We've never considered merged companies be significant itself and the revenue number is not any different either. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I didnt understand your comment regarding Emakina group. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The page would be eligible for tagging as A7 deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Usernamekiran: Irrespective of whether or not Emakina Group is notable, I'm not aware of any guideline or policy that specifically states that merged companies are somehow automatically insignificant as some sort of default. As an example, the Douglas Aircraft Company later merged with McDonnell Aircraft in 1967 to form McDonnell Douglas, and after the merger, McDonnell Douglas later merged with Boeing in 1997. Despite the mergers, Douglas Aircraft Company remains notable. See also: WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister and Northamerica1000: Yes. There is no policy that states merged companies lose their notability. On the contrary, "notability is not temporary". About the company in discussion, it has a disputed notability in my opinion. That's why I posted the "may not meet notability" tag appropriately.
—usernamekiran(talk) 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Kiran, I mentioned about the merged companies because none of the listed ones have an article therefore it's not a claim of significance by policy WP:A7. The same we've applied in cases people or entities were mentioned yet had no actual significance, therefore not a credible claim of significance. For example, we would never accept a musician article if he was signed to a non-notable label with no article, this case is no different. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I am more confused now. The company was founded through merger of three other companies. These three companies may not be notable, but the resultant company (Emakina Group) of the merger has a borderline notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

However what's currently given would certainly not pass WP:GNG or WP:N by itself and certainly not the WP policy WP:What Wikipedia is not given it's suggestive of using Wikipedia as a webhost. There's never been a case where we found a cited company website to be notability after all. I took the liberty of searching for news and all I found was announcements, press releases, company statements, interviews at Google News and Books unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NOT (speaking enough French, I saw some actually gave the company credit for the information therefore not independent). I hope this answers some of the general questions, SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Usernamekiran: Emakina Group is WP:LISTED on Alternext under the ticker ALEMK, which could be interpreted as a moderate claim of importance. Alternext is an equity trading market run by its parent institution Euronext. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: You, and me both are working in goodfaith. But I am not able to understand your point. If you have different opinion(s) about the company/article; kindly edit as you see fit. There would be no hard-feelings. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Normally, we put the material for a merged company together under the most recent name. But there are exceptions, like for the two aircraft companies mentioned. The basis for the exception is that they are both of them not just notable, but exceptionally famous, with dozens of world-famous products each , some of great historical significance. For why that is not applicable here, see WP:EINSTEIN.
• As for stock exchanges, only the most important principal exchanges count., certainly not subsidiary exchanges like the one mentioned above. Sometimes an important company will be listed on a subsidiary exchange, so being listed there is not prooof of non-notability, but the overwhelming number of companies there are not remotely notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in June 2017

The edit to terrorist incidents in June 2017 was not unconstructive. I removed the content as this incident is NOT terrorist-related. The citation clearly states that CT police are not investigating the incident, the suspect's motives are unknown and the man (due to mental health issues) may not be held accountable at all. Please revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.251.201 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.251.201 (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF EDITED ARTICLE

Hi, I am an admin of universities in Nigeria and i needed to edit phone numbers on the page to enable students get in contact with us but the numbers were been removed by you .......Please how do i add this numbers ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.13.101 (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP is just the latest sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Dave Ramsey who keeps adding the same, totally irrelevant, telephone number to multiple articles - Arjayay (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay: thanks for the tip. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@76: I think you should see this if you come across something like this in future. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong username, but thanks all the same :) —72 _talk 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• For what its worth, the phone numbers being added does not represent the universities. The contact numbers on the school websites are all different from the numbers he's adding. There are numerous cases of admission fraud in Nigeria and I think WP should take this very seriously. This is not the time to assume good faith. I have been reverting their edits for some months now. Darreg (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Darreg: I agree with you about the scam. I have reverted a few edits in the past. This issue has also been discussed on a heavily watched talkpage (User talk:Materialscientist#Sort of urgent). But the wikipedia policies/rules are already good enough; nothing much can be changed regarding this issue. I hope more editors get to know about these activities. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Badme

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Badme. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There are four Friendship Bridges between Thailand and Laos

Yes, in response to your reversion of my four entries on the disambiguation page for Friendship Bridge, I think you have made a mistake. Please review your reversions, which are unnecessary and non-constructive, and reinstate my edits. 203.219.56.152 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the confusion. I have reinstated your edit/undid mine. Kindly add edit summary after making edits to avoid such incidents in future. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kiran. In the edit summary, usually I now simply post a copy of the edit. In the past, I used to include also a detailed explanation, but that simply seemed to confuse other editors.203.219.56.152 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Erm... This method will confuse the other editors even more. I think you should add a brief summary, if not detailed. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be a good user. You should consider about creating an account on wikipedia.

Your email

I agree with you that she looks like a paid editor (with a focus), but unless you know of another account that is similar, there's not much I can do about it from a socking standpoint. You could always ask her straight out about her activities here. I don't think she talks, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, no talking. And no, I didn't ask you as a sys-op, or CU. I asked you cuz I needed a second opinion; and I believe you can see the patterns, and you are good with background checks. Thanks for your time though :)

As I said earlier, I will keep an eye on her activity. But I dont think it is really harmful; paid or free, her edits are constructive. Thanks again. PS: If you need a second look/opinion on somebody; please let me know, I am good at it. Best —usernamekiran(talk) 13:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP Organized Crime

I could use some help in populating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories page for the bot. It will take some time to create a comprehensive list that covers most or all of the project's scope, but I don't know if I can commit to updating the entire list alone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I will surely contribute as much as I can. But I am not sure what "recursive category" means. Kindly give me one example, and I will start working on it. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13 meant that pages in subcategories and sub-subcategories of those will need to be listed separately, in one long list, and that the bot cannot go through the categories using a category tree. So, we have to list everything manually. I'm trying to keep the list in a sort of topical and/or alphabetical order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There are four Friendship Bridges between Thailand and Laos

Yes, in response to your reversion of my four entries on the disambiguation page for Friendship Bridge, I think you have made a mistake. Please review your reversions, which are unnecessary and non-constructive, and reinstate my edits. 203.219.56.152 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the confusion. I have reinstated your edit/undid mine. Kindly add edit summary after making edits to avoid such incidents in future. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kiran. In the edit summary, usually I now simply post a copy of the edit. In the past, I used to include also a detailed explanation, but that simply seemed to confuse other editors.203.219.56.152 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Erm... This method will confuse the other editors even more. I think you should add a brief summary, if not detailed. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be a good user. You should consider about creating an account on wikipedia.

Your email

I agree with you that she looks like a paid editor (with a focus), but unless you know of another account that is similar, there's not much I can do about it from a socking standpoint. You could always ask her straight out about her activities here. I don't think she talks, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, no talking. And no, I didn't ask you as a sys-op, or CU. I asked you cuz I needed a second opinion; and I believe you can see the patterns, and you are good with background checks. Thanks for your time though :)

As I said earlier, I will keep an eye on her activity. But I dont think it is really harmful; paid or free, her edits are constructive. Thanks again. PS: If you need a second look/opinion on somebody; please let me know, I am good at it. Best —usernamekiran(talk) 13:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP Organized Crime

I could use some help in populating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories page for the bot. It will take some time to create a comprehensive list that covers most or all of the project's scope, but I don't know if I can commit to updating the entire list alone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I will surely contribute as much as I can. But I am not sure what "recursive category" means. Kindly give me one example, and I will start working on it. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13 meant that pages in subcategories and sub-subcategories of those will need to be listed separately, in one long list, and that the bot cannot go through the categories using a category tree. So, we have to list everything manually. I'm trying to keep the list in a sort of topical and/or alphabetical order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF EDITED ARTICLE

Hi, I am an admin of universities in Nigeria and i needed to edit phone numbers on the page to enable students get in contact with us but the numbers were been removed by you .......Please how do i add this numbers ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.13.101 (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP is just the latest sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Dave Ramsey who keeps adding the same, totally irrelevant, telephone number to multiple articles - Arjayay (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay: thanks for the tip. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@76: I think you should see this if you come across something like this in future. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong username, but thanks all the same :) —72 _talk 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• For what its worth, the phone numbers being added does not represent the universities. The contact numbers on the school websites are all different from the numbers he's adding. There are numerous cases of admission fraud in Nigeria and I think WP should take this very seriously. This is not the time to assume good faith. I have been reverting their edits for some months now. Darreg (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Darreg: I agree with you about the scam. I have reverted a few edits in the past. This issue has also been discussed on a heavily watched talkpage (User talk:Materialscientist#Sort of urgent). But the wikipedia policies/rules are already good enough; nothing much can be changed regarding this issue. I hope more editors get to know about these activities. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

changes to eastwood rugby page?

hello

you reverted some changes I made - but my changes are right - I just fixed up an omission  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimiera (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 

@Vimiera: Hi, I apologise for the confusion. As you had not provided an edit summary, it looked like vandalism. And thanks for letting me know about my mistake, I will try not repeat similar mistake in future. See you around. Happy editing. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 11:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Maps issue

Any chance this could have to do with the issues you were experiencing? If not, were those already fixed since you contacted me about it the other day? As for your draft, I've received your notification but it's is still on my TODO. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 15:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Hi. Thanks a lot for keeping that map issue in mind. It means a lot, and very much appreciated. Unfortunately, i am not feeling well (health issues). I think i might go offline completely, or partially for few upcoming days (Floquenbeam may remember my issue, the current one is caused and amplified because of it.) See you soon. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

I haven't followed the discussions on the JFK conspiracy talk page so I really am making a suggestion for your consideration in the future. As a general rule it's inappropriate to close a discussion in which you are participant, especially one that you started. I realize you requested that two admins close, and they did not respond. Another way to get a discussion closed is to post it at WP:ANRFC. The process can take a while, but it really doesn't hurt anything to leave a discussion open until an uninvolved editor closes it. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything; just giving a little friendly advice. Sundayclose (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose :-)
it wasn't just these two, I contacted two more admins including El C, and someone with difficult username. Fluabepam or something like that. One of the admins didn't respond, one of the admin said he can't do it cuz he is involved in the article (he posted the same on the discussion itself). Other admin said "we close AfD [an he used some acronyms that I forgot], we don't close these". So I contacted another user, Jack of Oz, he said he can't do it as he is not involved in the discussion. I thought of contacting you, but I then I realised you must have watchlisted these articles, and I you haven't done it by now, there was no point. So I went here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

Got negative response again. So from all the responses I got recently, it was evident nobody can close these discussions (maybe JFK or E Howard Hunt can lol). And as the conclusion wasn't based on logic or consensus, as it was factual, I decided to do it myself.

Thanks for the message, I really appreciate it a lot. :-) if you don't remember, you were first human who had interaction with me. I even left a message to your talkpage a few days ago. Thanks again:-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my page

Thank you for reviewing my page on Shrivastav_Madhubhai_Babubhai Notthebestusername (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername: And thank you for creating a good article. :)

Also, the communication goes on talkpages ;) See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In ref to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraeya Srinivasan

Hi, Shreaya is an upcoming national level athlete and just finished her high school. That's why you see lots of articles, references from the local newspaper and her school. She's just starting to get regional and national attention as a champion and there are now new references from the reputed Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

Also since most of the articles are from single local source, its easier to verify as well. Let me know if you want the journalist contact and i can have it arranged for verification. Srinisankar (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)srinisankar

@Srinisankar: Hi. Wikipedia has guidelines like WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. I would say, and almost all of the wikipedia editors will agree on it: "not for now". She can have an article as soon as there is no "upcoming" anymore. In other words, a person can have an article after becoming notable, not when the notability is expected.

Regarding the new sources, I suggest you put it in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shraeya_Srinivasan; as the fate of the article is not in my hands anymore, it depends on the consensus of the discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(@Usernamekiran:) Thanks. What i meant by upcoming is she just competed at the national level. She is already a Regional champion. Yes i reached out to the other thread regarding the validity of the news sources --Srinisankar (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)srinisankar

Request for Reviewing Page

Can you please reviewing page Nila Tanzil, english wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nila_Tanzil from Adhimas25. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhimas25 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Malliya Rechana, Kavijanasrayam

Thanks, I have fixed citation issues created by Abrahmad111 who called them Vancouver style but were noted as unkown by you. Also fixed for Wiki Notability as per you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question. Abrahmad111 is constantly fooling and undoing and removing much older and antique research references in order to attribute a poet to his region rather than sticking to the history. I have kept his references (which are mostly from a thesis written in 1985 and some individual writings) and only removed his unreferenced personal theories but he has been removing all my referenced info (100 yr old The Indian Antiquary research) to put forth only his theories. What do you advise? Now he removed my content and writes one has to stick to the old style. This fellow creates duplicate pages and vandalizes pages to put forth his theories. He blanks/removes content from his talk page from time to time if he cannot answer back. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your advise. I will include my old and well referenced content as I did previously and not remove his well referenced content though they are thesis and debatable individual works. I will keep the theories in chronological order too. I will wait until I hear from all the relevant Admins on this subject. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@SubhashiniIyer: this is a wise decision, for now. Some other editor with knowledge of that particular field can work on the article after that. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover

Hello there! Your page mover user right has been approved. Continue with the good work! By the way, what is the font that you are using for your username? Alex Shih^Talk 16:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. The font is mono. This is the original markup:
—<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;">{{SUBST:mono|usernamekiran[[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="letter-spacing:1pt;">'''(talk)'''</span>]]}}</span>
I hope the signature is not causing any trouble on code levels.
—usernamekiran(talk) 18:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the late response on the page move question by the way, glad it was solved. Alex Shih^Talk 05:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done! I don't see any issues. Alex Shih^Talk 20:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thank you. :) I still haven't figured out why you asked about the font though.
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry I asked because the font also alters the font of the page title on your user/user talk page. I just thought it was interesting. Alex Shih^Talk 20:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: No, its not the font, I used {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for that. ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wilson's Heart

Hi, please could you undo the move and relist the discussion at Talk:Wilson's Heart (House)? I raised a point yesterday, that the House episode is still the primary topic, and discussion on that question was still ongoing, so normally it would be sensible to relist it so that we can address the point. Your close did not even mention my argument. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: When I made the decision, I took in notice/account not just the consensus, but the consistency as well. Other episodes have been named in a smilar fashion. (Paternity (House) or Love Hurts (House)). I am afraid that move can not be undone, because of the way I closed the discussion. But unlinke AfD, a page can be moved many times. If you still feel it should be named something else, kindly initiate a new move request, and invite every editor that took part in the previous discussion. This will not be considered as canvassing. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: alright then, thanks for your response.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Kindly do not get me wrong here. I gave the situation a logical thought. Keeping the page title in convention with the other page titles, and consensus seemed enough for closure. If you want, kindly initiate a new request and let me know. I will formally invite all the editors from previous discussion, and I will not close that request. But I still think it would not achieve consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability tags

Hi, please do not add notability tags to articles that have sig cov (one paragraph or more as defined by AFC guidelines) in at least two reliable sources as that is a bare pass of WP:GNG which overrrides project specific notability guidelines, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Hi. Thanks a lot for your kind suggestion. Especially, non-user biting is a lot appreciated! :)
What should we do with such articles that barely pass GNG? Should we use ref improve tag, or should we simply mark it as reviewed? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

hi, ref improve and reviewed if they barely pass the WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Claims

@Anoptimistix: Hi. First of all, I apologise for my comment on the nomination page of article deletion. It was impolite.
Secondly, I want to let you know that I am not stalking you. I nominated your articles for deletion because I think they do not deserve to be on wikipedia. If I am wrong, then these articles will certainly survive AfD. If you have any questions regarding my activity in general, or about my activity concerning you (the alleged "stalking"), please free to ask it directly. I will answer your questions.

After the answers, if you still feel I am doing something that an editor is supposed not to do, and if you feel my behaviour should be reported to an admin, then the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would be the place to do it. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I have no hard feeling with you dear mate. I got a suspicion that you were stalking me when I observed you keeping a watch on my edits and activities, particularly tagging my articles for deletions and that too couple of them. As I had created those articles with a lot of efforts and devoting time through mobile (as you know this platform is quite difficult) to edit Wikipedia. Take care but please respect some ones hardwork and efforts to spread information, you don't create contents ,and tag others content for deletion. If editors would act like this and tag every page for deletion, nothing would left in Wikipedia. As a new page patroller I have respected every editors hardwork even newbie, But still take care ,God bless Anoptimistix (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: Hi. I do not have any hard feelings towards you either. :) Actually, I respect your policy/thinking. But unfortunately, we (as editors/page reviewers) should not give much consideration to the time and energy invested by an editor. We should encourage them, guide them, along with taking care of wikipedia itself. I recently nominated an article for speedy deletion which was about an unremarkable person. The editor had created that article about himself, and he had worked very hard on it. But as it was not at all notable it had to be deleted. If this is not done, wikipedia would turn into facebook, and it will have articles about every living person, and everything that has ever existed. These concepts/issues have been covered in WP:MILL, and WP:ENN.

I am not particularly keeping watch on your activities. When I came across your account for the first time, I skimmed through the history as I always do. I noticed a few a things at that time, including that you like to keep your talkpage tidy and clean. But you do it by deleting the conversations instead of archiving them. I would suggest you set up a bot for archiving your talkpage. I also noticed you use mobile to edit wikipedia. I would suggest you to use WP:Twinkle if your mobile screen is big enough. While in mobile browser, after clicking on "Desktop View" at the page of bottom, desktop mode is loaded including Twinkle. It is a very useful tool.

Regarding other stalking doubt, whenever I tag an article using Twinkle, it is automatically added in my watchlist. Same happened with your article when I tagged it for notability issue. When you removed "under construction" tag, it showed up in my watchlist. As the tag was removed by the creator himself, I nominated the article for deletion.

For me not creating content doubt: Creating content is not limited only to creating new articles. I mostly add new content to articles. Adding well sourced new content is also considered as content creation.

If you have any questions/doubts regarding wikipedia, please free to ask me. I will try my best to explain. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran kindly check my edit of Pub Jyotinagar page, if it still supposed to be deleted or need more information or editing! Nikish21 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Flashmanianus

Somebody else has already revoked talk page access. The user promptly logged out and carried on abusing the talk page while editing as an IP. The semi-protection was to stop them doing that. Hut 8.5 20:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help me..

can u help me? can u help through whatsapp please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadirsaab (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Quadirsaab: I will certainly like to help you.

But unfortunately, giving out personal contact information is not recommended. And personally, I am very much concerned about my privacy. And on another note, I dont use whatsapp anymore.

Whatever help you need, you can ask it here, or if you think it requires privacy, then you can email me. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kiran! How can I email you? i dont have an ID of urs..

Thanks for ur courteousness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadirsaab (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Quadirsaab: Hi, my email (or any user's email) can be found on their userpage. Kindly go to User:Usernamekiran (in desktop view) and you will be able to find an option "Email this user" in th column on left hand side of the page. Or, here is a shortcut for it: Special:EmailUser/Usernamekiran. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 14:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

Extensive discussion has occurred on that article's talk page. Flibber2388 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Flibber2388: Yes, I saw that after you reverted my edit. I apologise for the confusion. But in WP:Huggle, your edit looked like vandalism by removal of content. Sorry again. Happy editing. :)

—usernamekiran(talk) 20:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: You reverted as "unexplained removal of content", but an long edit note was given as reason. Please make sure you read edit notes. -- ferret (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I am not sure what's your point with your message. I already agreed that it was a mistake on my side, I apologised for it as well. I am not an idiot to not to learn from my mistakes. I have already made a note to myself regarding that. Also, "long" is not prefixed with an "an".

Kindly do not communicate with me in any manner unless it is an actual point. I hope you uphold my request. You should really put your wikipedia time to work constructively other than threatening me, or finking on me. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I only came to reply because I saw the revert itself on my watchlist (I do not watch your talk), and wanted to make sure you were aware of the edit note. Anyone doing automated patrolling needs to be aware of such, and take care to set valid revert reasons. That IS an actual point, and you made no mention of seeing the edit note so I would not have been aware you had already realized it. Carry on, I have nothing further to say on the topic. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I don't care if you watch my talkpage, or stalk my off-wiki online activity, or even my real life activity. It doesn't matter to me. You came to this talkpage, instead of creating a new section you inserted your comment in appropriate section. Didn't you see there that I already agreed to my mistake? I'm aware that I made a mistake. There is no need to remind me of that, unless you are implying I did this mistake on purpose, and that I'm planning to continue doing it. Is this what you are trying to say ferret? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant it as nothing more than a friendly reminder to ensure you check edit notes as you patrol. Nothing more, nothing less. -- ferret (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: If you say so - I will assume you came to this talkpage in goodfaith. I hope the situation will never come where we need to communicate again. I hope the best for you in your life, excluding me. Now you should walk away. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Note: If one thinks I was being impolite in the conversation, or maybe even rude; then they should see the diffs included in the conversation above. All I did is, I gave Ferret a little taste of his own behaviour. —usernamekiran(talk)

Please be mindful of WP:POINT then. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not play games and get revenge. This is not helping anyone build an encyclopedia, so please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Kindly elaborate how I am playing games and getting revenge? I never tried to communicate with ferret in any way before after the conversation where he threatened to block me. I completely ignored him, on a couple of occasions I even avoided commenting in discussions where he had commented. It was him who initiated this conversation. I thought it was over, and posted the "note" above; and moved on. The only reason I posted the note is so that a third person should not get a wrong impression that I was being impolite or rude in the conversation. I ceased the conversation, I told ferret in extreme explicit words that I will never communicate with him again, and suggested him to do the same. Now why are you stirring it again? Also, it is interesting that even though I had clearly "stopped" of whatever you are accusing me of, you posted a comment here, and nothing on ferret's talkpage, nor you pinged him here. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comment reads as "This may seem rude, but I'm just doing the same thing to Ferret as I perceived him to have done to me." As in, it looks like you're just being overly rude to get back at him. I didn't leave a message on Ferret's talk page because I had nothing to say to him on the matter. He did nothing wrong here, he merely pointed out you missed an edit notice, which is a valid thing for him to do, whether you have conceded your wrongdoing already or not. I was just making sure you were aware of POINT. I assumed you weren't, considering how blatant of a concession of doing it was in the box above, and most people don't so openly admit to going against it like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fact is fact. I am not going to hide anything. I am aware of "point". I believe it is not disruptive if I posted one reply trying to end the communication (that message was replied to). Hence the communication went on. In the later part of the communication I used similar vocabulary style as used by the person when he communicated with me. This is how communications work generally. I dont see how this is disruptive or "getting revenge". I believe this conversation is over. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User pages

Please don't edit my user pages as you did here. It's not a big deal, it wasn't a bad edit, but in general you shouldn't update other user's pages, unless you've been invited to do so.

This is not an article and is subject to WP:User pages and WP:User talk pages. See also {{Userpage warning}}.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I am already aware of everything that you mentioned above. I am aware I wasnt invited, but I thought this edit would not be un-welcomed at the least. I was wrong. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha! I misunderstood the intent. Sorry about that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: It happens. Dont worry about it. :)
But I thought the sentence was severely incorrect, so I edited it. As it was a userpage, I specifically added "good faith edit".
See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Would you please consider adding a comma on appropriate location in the sentence? —usernamekiran(talk) 16:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and returned your edit -- it's better. If you think that something else is needed, go for it. Thanks, kiran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That tiny edit doesnt need a thanks. :)

You seem to have a thing for reverts Carole lol. See you around. :)

—usernamekiran(talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing that you are meaning the work that I do on Huggle reviewing recent edits for vandalism. Yep, I revert some - I'd say right now I'm just dabbling at reviewing recent edits. See you around.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In Response

Hi there Kiran,

I read your email and have no hard feelings with regards to the multiple article nominations that have recently flooded my page. I try to do my best to give the articles a good base to expand upon. There may be times where I publish an article without giving the full perspective on the item in question, which is just a bad habit of mine when editing. I do try my best to be as frank and unbiased as possible in my work, which may have come across as editorializing in some regards.

I have the intention of later working on articles with regards to Sony A-mount lenses and third party lenses as well. As of late I've been preoccupied with home life and been through a couple family emergencies this past month, which may best explain my recent absence. I have not left Wikipedia, nor do I have the intention of quitting anytime soon. Things just lined up so coincidentally that it may have come off as such.

I appreciate the offer for support in improving upon the articles I've created as of late. Note that you are under no circumstances required or obligated to work on these articles. I just happen to be a photographer who has expertise in these matters, which is why I took it upon myself to clear the Sony E-mount lens list of red links. It's difficult to not come off as promotional and try to emulate the more refined lens articles I've come across, such as Canon 70-200mm lens article. All in all, I am willing to work with you to bring the articles up to par.

No worries, and no hard feelings. I always try to assume good faith. And I hope you feel better soon.

- Raine

Chevy111 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A puppy for you!

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to collaborating with you!

Walker in the Mist (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisting

Hi Usernamekiran

Just a quick tip about relisting requested move discussions - the {{relisting}} template should be placed immediately after the nominator's signature, not at the bottom of the conversation. See this edit, where I've moved your relist comment to the correct location. The reason for this is that the bot which processes requested moves expects to find it there, and will not actually do the relist if you put the template further down. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this was another one!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Organized crime

As I stated earlier, I am not willing to populate the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories all by myself. Any plans to expand it? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Northamerica1000,
I apologise for not contacting you earlier. I was going to, but I couldnt. I am not feeling well now. So I think I wouldnt be able to come online much. I need two favours from you though. One is, kindly give me one example of the category that we need. Like: xyz is the category that we previously added, but we need abc category <brief reason (if possible)>. The second favour is a little information of what to do now/later other than tagging the talkpages of articles with category template? You dont have to work at all on populating the category list :) I will do it all by myself; but I need a little more time.

Even though my activity on wikipedia will decrease for few upcoming days, I will be working on few articles off the wiki. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Re example requested: Categories and subcategories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime#Categories would be a good start. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Hi, I will soon post a few categories that I think are requested by Rob on Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories; just as an example. If you give me a green light there, I will start listing the categories in same manner. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 09:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you don't have to ask permission, just go for it! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: lol, i mean if I do something wrong you can let me know, so I wont waste more time on collecting incorrect categories. If I have understood the categories issue correctly, and if I have got it right, you can say so and I will start listing them in full speed. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I will check in on the list, and probably add more to it later. The main issue is "This is to prevent mistakes. If you go deep enough down a category tree, there is almost always pages unrelated to the top category", as stated by User:BU Rob13 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories. So, one just has to pay attention to this matter as one goes along. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Northamerica1000. As you can see from the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories, I tried to work on the categories but I got confused again. So I started to tag the talk-pages manually. I tagged a few articles so far. Tomorrow, I will go through Category:Organized crime by ethnic or national origin, and I will start by tagging high traffic/most watched articles (hunch). I will move through different nations, and type (timber mafia, coal mafia and so on). I will try to cover such articles that a lot of editors will realise that WP:MAFIA is active again.
Also, I edited the talkpage wikiproject template to include the image. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

New participants

More folks have joined the project. Check out the Participants section now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Yes. Seems like, Walker in the Mist, and Walker in the Mist got information from the talkpage banner. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 07:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it before, but the banner is likely a decent means to attract new participants. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I thought you knew about that. Whoever have watchlisted these articles, will obviously realise posting of wikiproject banner. And there must be a reason why they have watchliested the article. Even if they dont add their name to participant list, there are chances that they would keep an eye on the project page. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. This provides more motivation to manually add more tags to article talk pages, in lieu of the daunting category list page for the bot to use. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Yes. We can both work on slowly on the category for bots thing. Meanwhile, I will keep on adding the header manually, based on guesswork about watchers of the articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have made a note to also perform more manual additions of the project banner to pertinent talk pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thanks. I was already thinking about making a rough list/plan for this task. I will do this after 12 hours from now. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget that {{subst:WP Organized crime invitation}} can be used to invite people directly too! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Adding the project banner also adds the article to a category which can be used to track the articles of the project, which is always nice (in this case Category:WikiProject Organized crime articles, and the subcategories by importance/quality). —PaleoNeonate - 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I tagged some more articles (more than 50 I think). I also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Current tasks to keep track of this activity.

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the tip Paleo. I didn't know about that. Apparently, if we exclude category talkpages, and similar non article talkpages, then around 300 articles(!) have been tagged. I was not expecting the number to be this high. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot tagging

I have revamped the organization at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories. I have defined the categories to be used atop the list, and formatted the page so that what has been done can be tracked, reducing having to double-check work. I haven't forgotten about this page, and it can be finished within a relatively reasonable amount of time, but it will take some time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Now I finally understand! lol. I will start working on it around my midnight. Its like 6 hours from now. Are you in Central Time Zone? —usernamekiran(talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John J. Hicks

Hello Usernamekiran,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John J. Hicks for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Zazzysa (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your close of a move request at Talk:2017_Temple_Mount_shooting#Requested_move_27_July_2017

I have a simple question about your closing rationale. How did you determine what the WP:COMMONNAME is? As far as I can see, there are some comments simply asserting that this is WP:COMMONNAME, with absolutely no evidence. Did you simply take them at their word? You might want to look at this diff, where I actually go through the evidence from news reports. There is strong evidence for WP:COMMONNAME, except it's in the opposite direction.

The irony is, if those people actually cared about their own criteria, they should be clamouring for the opposite result. But people in this area (like most political areas) start from the conclusion, then find reasons to support them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Hi. I observed the consensus, but I also searched on internet before making the final decision. "Temple mount shooting" was used most of the times (whenever it was mentioned with a proper title, rather than "holy site" or similar), so it becomes "common name". Also, there was consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What exactly did you search for? As I show in my own search (linked at the diff I gave above), almost all sources use both names, not "Temple Mount" alone. Many of them also use terms like "Al-Aqsa mosque compound". What search terms were you using?

Also, this procedure is highly irregular. Why were you searching at all? The closer is supposed to look at the arguments present on the talk page and look at what they say, not do their own research. And you didn't show your research, so it can't be discussed. I understand that there were a LOT of people claiming that Temple Mount (alone) is common name, but you can't simply say that they are right absent any evidence. Consensus is not voting. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Exactly, consensus is not voting. The page mover party (admin, or editor with page mover flag, or any editor) should take the decision without any partiality; but it is also advised not to move pages "blindly", hence the search. From all the sampled references, most of the refs use generic terms like holy site, Jerusalem's old city, and so on. But the biggest chunk that uses a proper title, uses temple mount; including times of Israel. The second proper title used is "Haram al-Sharif complex", but it is less in comparison with temple mount. For the the search, I used a few different keywords, including "shooting in jerusalem 2017". —usernamekiran(talk) 20:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is all messed up, but I don't really want to challenge the close, so I'll let it be. So, this is my final comment, just FYI.

There are two names for the same general area: Temple Mount (which is the English translation of the Jewish name Har Habait), and Haram al-Sharif, which is the Arabic name (English translation: Noble Sanctuary). The area is also called the Al-Aqsa mosque compound. This is all described in the first paragraph of Temple Mount article.

To determine what is WP:COMMONNAME, one has to look at how newspapers (for example) describe the general area in the article. Obviously, they can't put everything in the headline, so they use things like "old city" or "holy site" in the headline and describe the situation in the article itself, some place near the beginning of the article.

Obviously most Israeli sources, like the Times of Israel will use "Temple Mount" (alone). If you look at Arab sources like Al Jazeera, they will use "Al-Aqsa mosque compound" or some such thing (alone). Therefore, look at international sources like wire service, the BBC and so on. As I (try to) show in the diff I mentioned above, almost all news sources use both names. Read the Guardian source you linked above: it uses both names.

To say "Temple Mount" is the WP:COMMONNAME flies in the face of all this evidence, and ignores the whole basis of the trouble going on there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

@Usernamekiran: I've cleaned a bit on Fertilizer City, you've good idea on neighborhoods, could you check it for any more corrections?--Vin09 (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vin09: I will take a look in few hours. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vin09: Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. I took a careful look at the diff, and I dont see any problem. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Emperor railway station, Pushkin town

I wrote this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_railway_station,_Pushkin_town

It has received this notice

This article needs attention from an expert in Russia. The specific problem is: The article needs a proper title, can not identified because of non-English sources. WikiProject Russia may be able to help recruit an expert. (July 2017)

I speak Russian, I currently live within a kilometer of this building, the content is basically the same as the French and Russian pages, the sources are taken from the Russian pages, the title is the same used for the category "Emperor railway station, Pushkin town"; and I provided many of the photos.

So is this notice needed?

To make matters worse the article now boasts a title which is simply a mixture of its Russian name and English "Imperatorsky pavilyon" is not English and is the latin version of its cyrillic name in Russian. Is transliteration of titles appropriate and correct? It is therefore completely incorrect. I suggest "Emperor's Pavilion / Railway Station" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyqs (talk • contribs)

@Harveyqs: Hi. I apologise for the mess. But it wasnt me who renamed the article. I will definitely look into the situation. Pinging Amakuru for guidance. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Move of Global warming in Russia

Greetings Usernamekiran! In your close of Global warming in Russia#Requested move 4 July 2017, you mentioned the long discussion, and you counted supporters and opponents, but you provided no summary of the discussion and no policy considerations in support of the move. As you surely know, discussions can not be reduced to a vote count. Could you please provide a more detailed closing rationale? Thanks in advance. — JFG ^talk 05:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Hi. Thanks for asking me the question. It is very much appreciated. The move was not performed on "vote-count". In the "discussion" subsection, it has been discussed that the move was necessary to achieve consistency. bd2412 is willing to request moves of other similar articles. There were some other reasons as well.

I basically closed it without providing a proper reasoning to avoid another instance like this: User talk:Usernamekiran#Your close of a move request at Talk:2017 Temple Mount shooting.23Requested move 27 July 2017. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have read the full discussion again, and there appears to be no clear consensus for the proposed move. One of the supporters of the "consistency" argument even wrote that he would rather support consistency towards "global warming in X" than towards "climate change in X". Several supporters only cite a personal preference, with no basis in policy. One person claims that "climate change" is much more in use than "global warming" but the Google Trends graph provided shows a roughly equal interest for both terms, in spite of some spikes likely due to media coverage.[1] Long story short, I believe this move request should have been closed with "no consensus", and perhaps prompt a wider discussion if we wish to address the perceived inconsistency globally. I would advise you to revert the move in light of my explanations here. If you stand by your close, I will take it to move review. By the way, I have opposed the move but I don't care very much one way or the other personally; I just think that your close did not accurately reflect the comments from the community. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG ^talk 11:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@JFG and BD2412: hi again. :) Sometimes, an editor has to think beyond the policies for greater good. I mean, look at the comment by Amakuru. The article is about a few different phenomenons than only "warming". It can be argued that it is an effect of global warming though. But the article also discusses about interruption of seasons, increase in rainfall, inconsistent cooling among few others. The title "climate change" seems more logical over "global warming". And yes, I still stand by my move. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you had a personal opinion about the article title, you should have participated in the discussion and let somebody else close it. Happy Sunday! — JFG ^talk 09:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@JFG and BD2412: lol. No, I had no personal opinion about the article, nor about renaming it. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 13:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I do have a personal feeling about it, but I think that if I were a neutral evaluator I would find this close to be within the permissible range of interpretations that an administrator could draw from the discussion. bd2412 T 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for adding the WikiProject Organized Crime template on the talkpage of several articles about the Mexican Drug War! I'll be using this moving forward. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@MX: Hi. Thanks a lot. Even though it isnt exactly an intellectual or difficult task, recognition of that boring task is appreciated a lot. I am looking forward to get the WikiProject Organized Crime active again. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Banda led, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hi. I nominated it for speedy deletion, and the reviewed it so that it would be removed from the feed/backlog. Should I not review after CSD nomination? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong CSD criterion. It was not gibberish, it was Romanian ;) Adding deletion templates automatically marks as reviews and retains the 'NO INDEX' tag.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Oh. I thought it was a mixture of Romanian and gibberish. :D
See you around. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Hi User,

You made a mistake by reverting the edit. Please insert correct symbol for clean up and speedy delete, as the sources are false. Please check link there are only 2 to 3 sources all self published and incorrect inaccurate links. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.117 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi.Given the age of Wang Kai (actor) article, and number of unique editors, I doubt your claims are true. But as I can not understand Chinese language, I think you should raise that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

× Astrolista bicarinata

Hi, just to confirm, as one who does a lot of plant article editing, that × Astrolista bicarinata is absolutely the right name, and hence article title, for a species in a hybrid plant genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thank you. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiTiger

I'm asking experienced users to look over my page and I came to you as my second one! I was told I could make a humor page so I did and I wanted to ask if you can look at it and possibly review it? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dinah. I would love to help, but i am not sure what kind of help is expected from me here. By the way, did you create these userboxes? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I need someone to review my page and tell me what may be wrong. And yes I did ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 00:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thats very impressive Dinah! You are learning very fast. :)
Unfortunately i took my zolpidem a few minutes ago, and i can feel it showing effect. So I should sleep soon. We can discuss about this tomorrow. Sorry :(
Meanwhile, you should read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal
and there is one more list on cabals. It is humorous, and you might get some ideas from them. :)

Also, emojis in your userboxes. See you tomorrow :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 00:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

see also: WP:CABALS —usernamekiran(talk) 00:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See you tomorrow! And I'll read that. Have pleasant dreams! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 00:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Dinah Kirkland: That's nice. I'm not sure about the list, WikiProjects maintain participant lists but WikiFauna pages usually don't. You could also eventually add at the bottom:

{{WikiFauna}}

[[Category:Wikipedia fauna]]

And add WikiTiger to {{WikiFauna}}. I noticed some minor errors in the text that I might correct if noone else does it before me, but I'm also close to bed time here. —PaleoNeonate – 04:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of A.Srinivasa Murthy article

Hi, Shall I add A. Srinivasa Murthy article again with Newspaper Ref? Please suggest.--Nandhinikandhasamy (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nandhinikandhasamy: Hi. Instead of creating an article directly, I would suggest creating a draft first: Draft:A. Srinivasa Murthy, and go through process of WP:AFC. It will be lot more convenient. If you have any more doubts/questions, please feel free to ask me. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to save Deeksha Center for Learning PU College (DCFL) from deletion

Hi Usernamekiran

Why do you want the page [[2]] to be deleted? Where it sounds promotional? Kindly advise

Surviva2017 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Surviva2017: hi. The article is not promotional but it reads like an advert. It also fails general notability criteria, as it does not have sufficient significant coverage. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Surviva2017: If you have any more doubts/questions, please feel free to ask me. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran bro,

I am a beginner, as an experienced guy you have to help me to create a right Wikipedia page. Instead of that just deleting a page without a reason is what can't understand. Kindly help me to create a page for that PU college Surviva2017 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Survivia2017: s/he does have a reason. A good one at that. And might i add I just took a look at the page... you may want to fix the reference list. It's all mixed up and confusing with the article. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 11:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dinah :)
@Surviva2017: Hi. I didnt nominated the article without any reason, I did it becuase it fails wikipedia's notability criteria. Given the current circumstances, no matter who creates the article, it will get deleted. I suggest you to read wikipedia's notability criteria, in particular "general notability guideline" section. If you still think the article would pass the notability criteria, I would suggest creating a draft first: Draft:Deeksha Center for Learning PU College (DCFL), and go through process of WP:AFC. It is sort of easy process, but if you have any difficulties/questions, please free to ask me. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A.Srinivasa Murthy

Hi i would like to know about dubbing artist A.Srinivasa Murthy article deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:7207:630C:AF07:80A1:F860:9A27 (talk) 03 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The deletion discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Srinivasa Murthy. If you have any questions/doubts please free to ask me. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Star syndrome

It remains a puzzle to me why editors bother to put tags on such pages and leave such notes. My own view is that their time on WP would be better used doing what they suggest themselves. Virion123 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Virion123: Hi. It always confused me my early days of wikipedia. Ditto. I usually do such small maintenance tasks myself instead of adding the tags/notes. But about this particular article, it is beyond my area of usual editing. If I try to introduce links to this article from other articles, there are very high chances that the links that I add, would not be very much useful (it might even be considered as spamming, or disruptive editing). It should be done by someone who is familiar with the subject. That's why such tags are added. When some other editor sees that tag, he knows that there is that particular thing to be done. Without that tag, it might go unnoticed for days, or in some cases for years (that has happened). It can also be reverse searched by specific topics, like "articles about medical conditions that need more references", or "orphan articles about medical conditions". I hope that clears your doubts :)
If there are any more doubts, or questions; please feel free to ask. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me

I have started a page User:Anoptimistix/CSD_log, User:Anoptimistix/PROD_log this month to keep a data of my CSD and PROD nominations, mostly the test pages which I nominate. I have also enabled CSD and PROD preferences in the twinkle preferences, but still it does not show results at those subpages. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: hi. In twinkle's preferences, there should be an option "Keep the CSD userspace log at this user subpage:" insert only "CSD log" in that space. And PROD log in appropriate space similarly. Also, the log is updated only when you nominate an article using twinkle. Let me know if that works. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you dear Kiran for your guidance, have done it as per your instructions. Hope it works :) Anoptimistix (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiTiger

You seem like a kind, helpful editor! To continue on it seems as if you would fit perfectly in the newest Wikipedia animal! WikiTiger is a project to help out newcomers in need of assistance and some who have been on for awhile to. For more details and information see WTDB.

Comment of my own: I did this be side you helped me a lot and therefore I think you should receive this invite ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 13:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: KAIS (musician)

Hello Usernamekiran. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of KAIS (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to have won an award at a notable film festival. Thank you. SoWhy 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Artsakh (disambiguation)

Hi Usernamekiran – it helps a great deal if you will remember to make sure that the talk page of a page you move targets the talk page of the page you moved it to. After moving Artsakh (disambiguation) to Artsakh, you left Talk:Artsakh (disambiguation) targeting Talk:Republic of Artsakh. That had to be fixed because links were broken to the RM discussion you closed. And heck, I imagine every page mover has done this at least once. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: lol. For once I did not cross-check, and there is an error! This time I had checked only the articles, and not the talkpages. Thanks for letting me know. :)
See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Coccyx fossa

I ll do best and add sci cite if possible, if could protect from undid reversion. Is it possible to use page name Olla (anatomy) to this. Also I ll use "pot" in explanation. Thanks! Hope to create some more articles. --Lepota (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepota: Hi. Thanks for the reply. As it is not my primary field of experience, I am not sure which is the best name for the article; Coccyx fossa, or "Olla (anatomy)". Iztwoz would surely know better than me. Also, I think the project page, and talkpage of WP:Wikiproject Anatomy will interest you a lot. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sep 07

Hi, I'm Joshq1234 here to inform that Abrahmad111 Removed Expert tag and confusion tag form the page Malliya Rechana. He given some nonsense reasons for his edit. Throughout the page history edit war between Abrahmad111&SubhashiniIyer is not so good i think. I observed that Abrahmad111&SubhashiniIyer they don't want others opinions on that page (or) the topic which they trying to create. I think that issue is going on form June which was controlled on August by you. What to do now can i revert his edit are just leave it to you?Joshq.JQ 14:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joshq1234, I have got an alert from my dashboard and it redirected it to me here. 1) What is causing the confusion for you ? 2) What is the reference that I gave is disputed ? Do you have a reference which is countering the reference I gave?

Basically it is an false impression created by SubhashiniIyer. Earlier I have given Central Sahitya Academy reference. She made a lot of noise on that reference with out having any subject knowledge.Usernamekiran got influenced by SubhashiniIyer.So he added need expert tag in that.She went on to say that I am brainwashed from last 15 years etc etc. Just because of her, I have put a lot of efforts in collecting EVIDENCES from 1900 - 1992 -2003.This is a 100 year old subject .

Although Central Sahitya Academy is an AUTHORITATIVE reference, because of the expert tag added , I have collected atleast 3-4 more CLINCHING references of the MOST reputed scholars. Some ppl are absolutely SHELL-SHOCKED with the references.Even after adding 4-5 references can you tell me what is disputed? are u disputing personally or are you providing a scholar's reference?--Abrahmad111 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Abrahmad111 and Joshq1234: This is exactly why I added the "expert needed" tag again. I don't know much about Telugu poets, so I can not say much about this particular article. I am not objecting to any of the sources provided. They are good. That said, I am not stating the article, or the content in it is inaccurate or flawed. I have no opinion regarding the accuracy. As Abrahmad111 pointed out, I do not want to be influenced by opinion of any particular editor, and similarly I do not want the article to be influenced by one particular editor. That is the point of WP:POV. That's why I think another editor should take a look at the article; an editor who has knowledge about this particular field, hence the "expert needed" tag.

Dear Usernamekiran When you say you have no opinion on the accuracy, then you should not have specified the below reason.This was my problem..

"expert needed|1=Andhra Pradesh|reason=The content has disputed accuracy, and has been subject of edit war.|date=September 2017"

Second ! I am not influencing the article.It is only that no other editor has contributed any valid references/counter references.All content I am putting is from sources.As you know,earlier the article was edited disruptively as per one editor's personal biases.

--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111 I am not saying you are pushing WP:POV in the article, or that you are incorrect, or that the sources are improper. I think you are right, and the sources are good. But the article needs a look from another editor with fresh mind. I dont think it is bad idea to have someone take a look at it. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your good words on the sources.Some where in your mind you still think this has to be reviewed by someone else.Likewise, I have a small doubt on many many wikipedia articles , So you mean I can tag 'expert_needed' on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahmad111 (talk • contribs)

Hi Abrahmad111. I think each, and every article on wikipedia needs a second view. Kindly dont get me wrong here. And because of the previous instability to the article, I think "expert needed" tag is called for. And no, there is a guideline (but not a rule) on wikipedia which says fix it if you can without waiting for someone else. So if you go on tagging multiple articles without trying to improve them, most of the editors will see your activity as "disruptive". About this article, I tried to improve it in the past, but I couldn't; that's why I requested an opinion from another editor. Kindly do not take this tag personally, I have no issues with your editing; but I still think a fresh set of eyes will improve the article a little. Isnt that we all want? To improve one article at a time, to build a better encyclopaedia? :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Usernamekiran

I know you were balanced initially.I understand your point and I know you are not trying to oppose me but still you fully did not come out of the false impression/aura created by one user.

"Important: When adding this template to an article, state the specific issue that you believe a subject-matter expert needs to address – not "the whole page in general". This may be done using the |reason= parameter and/or on the article's talk page"

What is the specific issue you have ? You say you have no opinion on accuracy? I have given Central Sahitya Academy,P.V.P Sastry,Arudra,Nidudavolu Venkat Rao,Chaganti Seshayya references(I am not exaggerating nor influencing you but these are nail hitting references). Truth is hard to digest though.I can't ask god to come and give his statement.

"Previous Instability" - is this the issue ? Is it unstable now? Why is it stable now? Have you checked with the person who caused the instability ? Did the person show any valid references that or was he/she just basing on prejudices? Do you want to mention "previous instability" as the reason? Also please note that

"An unexplained or trivial expert needed tag can be and should be removed by any editor, and is usually replaced with expert needed talk on the article's talk page if the reason for the request was clear but the issue is minor."

--Abrahmad111 (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm SamHolt6. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, KAIS (musician), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

SamHolt6 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: erm... The article was nominated for speedy deletion, which was denied. I have added the notability, and "one source" tag. Not sure why it is unreviewed. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My bad, for some reason I thought I had accidental reviewed the page in question.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I can understand. :)
See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Guidance

Usernamekiran, I would be interested and grateful for any guidance you can give on adding new articles. User:joflaher

@Joflaher: Thanks a lot for accepting my offer so graciously! It is very much appreciated. Even though I am not a doctor, I am a psychiatrist, and I work in computer science (my educational background is confusing lol). Do you know Dr Greg by any chance? I am a huge admirer of him, and James, and few other doctors.

To begin with editing practice, first of all reading about the sandbox would be the wisest thing to do. Basically, it is a place for experiments without any laws except copyright, threats, attacks, and bad-mouthing; so we can experiment on whatever thats left. But you already are familiar with sandbox (User:Joflaher/sandbox). A user can have multiple sandboxes. If you have some idea in your mind to work on, let me know about it; and I can tell you more about sandbox while working on that idea in the sandbox. Also, I am in no hurry about "making progress", kindly let me know if you want to learn slowly, or want to get it over soon? There is no need to hurry about anything. We should take as much time it takes to suit with your real-life schedule. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Again, thanks for volunteering to help my editing. If or as soon as I find a page that Wikipedia may need, I'll be in touch. By the way: a psychiatrist is a doctor; I often refer my family members and colleagues to them. User:joflaher

Disamb page

"Hello.
As per discussion at Talk:Red Dragon (2002_film)#Requested move 8 September 2017, I moved the pages accordingly. But I couldnt figure what to do with Red Dragon (film). Your guidance will be much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)"

Having a separate DAB page for two films is not normally necessary since these titles are already listed at the Red dragon DAB page which itself is reasonably short. Instead, the "(film)" title should just redirect to that disambiguation page. This is implicit in WP:DPAGE § Combining terms on disambiguation pages. NB examples such as The Man Who Knew Too Much (film) and The Great Gatsby (film). I have just done the edit for Red Dragon (film). Thanks for your work at WP:RM. —  AjaxSmack  01:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you categorize Al Giordano in "Organized Crime"?

Hi, Usernamekiran. Al Giordano is on my watchlist, so I noticed you recently categorized it as related to organized crime. This seems misleading, although I assume you refer to his legal battles ca 2002 about Mexican drug gangs, and the (failed) lawsuit against him and others by Banamex. Giordano's political activities have resulted in frequent attacks on his biography, and I think that categorizing it as related to organized crime will just add more confusion. Accordingly, I will remove the "organized crime" category. If you wish to re-add it, please include justification on the article's talk page. Thank you. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Hi. Thanks a lot for a non-bitey feedback. :)
Yes, you are right. I am currently adding wikiproject banner on articles related to organised crime. It includes, but not limited to: criminals involved with organised crime, mobsters, mafia, and similar. It also includes the people/organisation who work against organised crime. This would include Al Giordano, because of his work regarding war on drugs. There is Category:People in counter-terrorism, but no similar category related to organised crime. But there are many journalists who are in this category/area, and social workers as well (for helping drug users, and prostitution).

Instead of adding the banner again, I will soon start a discussion regarding the generalised issue. Thanks again. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 10:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly explanation. If you want to re-add the banner, I'd ask for a simple explanation on the article talk page explaining (as you did here) that Giordano is included for battling organized crime (more than a decade ago), not for taking part in it. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding the explanation on the talk page. Your consideration and good humor are a much-needed resource! HouseOfChange (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: lol. Thanks a lot mate :)
See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Unorphaned

Hi, thanks for reviewing my stub on Basilia fletcheri. I was able to link it from a couple other articles; should I remove the orphan template now? Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Hi. Thanks for letting me know. There are now 4 articles linking to the article. And yes, any editor (including the page creator, in this case you) can remove the maintenance tags if the issue/maintenance in question is resolved. And in case it needs a little explanation, it can be done in edit summary or on talkpage of the article. But talkpage explanation is usually required when tags are similar to {{advert}}, or {{coi}}. Orphan, no ref, ref improve are most easy, or "circumstantial" tags. All you have to do is to remove the tag, and in edit summary add "not orphan anymore" or something similar. If you doubts regarding anything on wikipeida, please free to ask. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I just wasn't sure if adding links to it from four other articles was "enough", but I guess it's not an orphan so long as it's more than zero. Thanks!Umimmak (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Kiran, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Cheers, ansh666 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Hi. Sorry for delayed reply. I also apologise for my delay in voting again at RfA. In the first instance, I had voted oppose, later I retracted my oppose vote. I was going to support you, but unfortunately I got busy IRL for two days, and when I came back on wikipedia, your RfA was closed just two hours ago. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

[3]

Can you please explain to me what is wrong with this edit and why did you revert it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: I apologise, I thought I was restoring a good version. Maybe it was an error from the software, or from myself. In any situation, I apologise for the mistake, user Primefac has already corrected it. Sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you for apologising and happy editing! Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi! I was working on the Grizzled Skipper Wikipedia page, and I'm just getting started as a new member. I saw your comment, and I do think I must have deleted that section on accident. Thank you for letting me know, and I apologize for the inconvenience! I also did want to ask you how I can transfer the newer sections that I have added (from the Revision as of 18:30, 26 September 2017) to the current version of this page (Latest revision as of 18:30, 26 September 2017)? Thank you for all of your help! J.Prakash2344 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@J.Prakash2344: Hi! Thanks for contacting me back. Would you please give me a few minutes so that I can edit the article entirely? I will contact you as soon as I am done. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Of course, thank you very much for all of your time as well as help with this, and I apologize again for my mistake! J.Prakash2344 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@J.Prakash2344: We are humans. We make mistakes. Repairing the mistakes, and not repeating them is the important thing. :_
I made some changes to Grizzled skipper. Would you please take a look at the article, and let me know if it is alright, and if it needs some changes? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@J.Prakash2344: —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: That looks wonderful! If I could ask you another question, is it possible for me to integrate information from "Life Cycle and Food Plants" into section 9, making sure that I indicate having performed this revision in the Edit Summary? J.Prakash2344 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@J.Prakash2344: Thank you. I am sorry, but I didnt understand your question. Also, I have only rudimentary knowledge of entomology, and butterflies are sort of out my reach. I can help with technical details thoughs. :)
On the talkpage of this article, I found it is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. So the talkpage of that project would be the best place to get answer. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera.
Please feel free to ask me anything. I will try to help, but if I can't, I can certainly point you in right direction to get the answer. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:BetBright

Organised crime?! Eagleash (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Thanks for pointing it out. I have removed it. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Organised crime

Are you aware you've placed an organised crime banner on a bunch of legal betting agencies? In one case, a footballer who does adverts for an agency? Not sure if this is intentional, but if it is, best discussed first. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorhawkes: Hi. Yes, there was some mixup. If you see my recent contributions, I have been reverting my own edits. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All good. Sorry to bite so quick. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorhawkes: lol. I didnt see it as bity :) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about citations

Hey, Kiran! I have a quick question, let's say I talked first hand with someone I am writing an article about. How do I cite that I talked directly to them, and my source wasn't a website or book, or do I have to publish it online, and then cite that publishing as my source? Thanks a bunch! VTnav (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav: Hi. It is good to see you on wikipedia again. Unfortunately, this is not recommended practice. According to the policies, content needs to be verifiable. It also needs to be a reliable source. Most of the times, a primary source is not considered as reliable, it is usually used as corroboration. So it would not be permitted to use subject's direct quote, if they are not from a verifiable source. Also, you should take a look at WP:OR, and some other editor might even claim it as conflict of interest. Please feel free to contact me again if there are more doubts. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)