Archives

Archive 1

March 2010 October 2010 November 2010 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 July 2017 September 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 Ausgust 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

@Fylindfotberserk,

Thanks for the information. The Bangalore wiki page mentions about the Bengaluru and only the matter of time all the Bangalore will be edited as Bengaluru in the Wiki Pages considering the amount of articles and it will take time to rewrite all the articles.

Please take part in the discussion. Lakshmi Putrudu, the dubbed version of this film, should not have a wiki page. The discussion is located on the page titled Vambu Sandai. Thank you. --DragoMynaa

Welcome, welcome, welcome Fylindfotberserk! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:51, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of non-Hindi songs recorded by Udit Narayan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dhadkan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk Sir, I have some confusion regarding notability of a Surgeon i.e. David S. Feldman, he is a orthopaedic surgeon and have also written some papers on NIH. but i think that there are no any secondry reliable sources which discuss about the subject to establish notability and also he didnt received any prestigious award so i am having confusion that should i nominate it for deletion or not. Thanks again sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: You may start an AfD IMO, since the article lacks enough secondary sources (there is only one). Let's see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Most welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Fylindfotberserk i also encountered another page i.e., Dror Paley who runs paley institue in which David S. Feldman also works, his article also dosent have independent reliable sources which discuss in depth about him and also he don’t received any prestigious award. I nominated the previous one for AfD should I nominate this also. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Another resume like article. Nominate it as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk today I encountered a article which was visited by some experienced editors but no one nominated it for deletion. I am talking about Michael Stein, i think this article does not qualify for WP:GNG or WP:NPROF because there are no independent sources which discuss about the subject in depth and also he is not not a vice chancellor or dean of any university, so i think he is absolutely not notable for having standalone articles. Should i nominate this well ??. And again thanks for your constant help sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Yes, absolutely. I wonder how so many pages like these are kept. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonderd how some experienced editors avoid these things. Nomination Done. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fylindfotberserk, I am not going to comment on the talk page of the Nanda Empire as I have repeated the same things, God knows how many times. But certain points I want to make to you regarding the editor in question:

1.) Relentless pushing of Krishna as a terrorist using a unique unknown source [1]. Funnily enough, these are the same people who label Al Qaeda, Maoists, Naxals, Lashkar, and Hamas as freedom fighters.

2.) The issue of continuous editing using their own inflammatory sources while the discussion is ongoing is an old habit of the editor: [2]. @Jtbobwaysf also noted that on [3]. Also, the editor choses to ignore that 'Brahmanism' is an inflammatory term coined by colonial powers and missionaries, just like 'hinayana' was coined by Mahayana Buddhists for orthodox Buddhists. Also, funny that this editor considers Witzel the ultimate authority but still won’t use Witzel’s dates as authoritative for Buddhism. Huh?

3.) It’s not limited to one Hindu or India-related page— inserting opinions as facts like they did on the Geeta page by adding that Geeta is definitely influenced by Buddhism (when Sāṃkhya is already mentioned). Then, when they found out that Sāṃkhya is known as an orthodox Hindu school that considers the Veda as the source of all knowledge, they went on the Samkhya page, pushed the dates of the Vedas, and inserted Buddhacharita (which was composed extremely late in 200 CE) along with the middle Upanishads and Geeta. They created a whole "proto-classical Sāṃkhya" section, which is not a scholarly term. On the other hand, they remove "classical Hinduism" (which is a scholarly term) wherever they can, replacing it with just "Hinduism." There was not even a fragment of Buddhacharita composed when the Geeta was fully composed and quoted day and night by Buddhists. Also, they push "South Asia" instead of "India" wherever they can while promoting "China" instead of "East Asia," if you have noticed. like her [4]. Look how they got rattled when someone changed Confucius’ place to East Asia from China, accusing them of double standards while firmly adhering to their own.

4.) They themselves changed the lead of the Hinduism page, making it "an umbrella term for various Indian religions and traditions unified by the concept of dharma." By this very definition, they made Buddhism, Vedic religion, so-called Brahmanism, Jainism, etc., part of Hinduism. So if it’s an umbrella term, then what’s the point of asserting "this was not Hinduism," "that was not Hinduism," "only synthesis is Hinduism," etc.? Pushing their views as general consensus is an old habit. I’ve told them a zillion times that common people, in the majority, can never be ascetics, especially at a time when no middle-ground schools of Buddhism had been created. Also, there were much earlier ascetic and Sāṃkhya movements than Buddhism. Still, they continuously crib about "What about common people?" "What about common people?"

5.) When someone is motivated, they don’t care about truth; they only care about POV pushing. But the problem is they are confused about how to properly POV push and on which page to add what to make more sense. Also, check out the Shakti page and the image they chose (which was later removed). I was fine with the image, but just look at the comment when this image was added to the Ātman page: [5]. That at least tells me something about the intent.

6.) Also, look at the Yoga page where they added the Jain part [6], using the Jain traditional date of 900 BC rather than the scholarly date to push their view that Yoga may just be totally non-Vedic. Also, there is no known Jainism before Mahavira (which is also dubious).

7.)Now, I have let it go. Whatever makes them happy and sleep better at night. So, I will not comment on all this nonsense on the respective talk page. I have already fought enough and concluded that I cannot change the inherent nature of anyone. They can have their little little moment of happiness Also, the person seems to get away with whatever they do, so it’s not worth fighting. I am no one and have no connections or influence. I am only letting you know in case you didn’t know, and you are a grandmaster editor who might not be fully aware of all this as people are busy with their lives. Although, I don’t have much hope from anyone to stop the vilification of Hindu and India-related pages, as there are more haters out there. These editors are the exact reason Wiki will one day get blocked in India. Then all their POV-pushing work—who will read? Their main target audience to mislead will disappear. Also, I can’t do this anymore; it’s the responsibility of concerned senior editors and admins, not mine. For some reason i thought you should know. I have given up. Too many of them. DangalOh (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy isn't a scholar of the subject matter. Only notable per WP:NPOL. Also, sources coming from this person is likely to be "non-neutral" considering he is the "the patriarch of the Marxist school of Indian historiography". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But who cares? As potato potatoes, tomato tomatoes, POV pushers POV pushates. And I also didn't know scholars can be labeled unreliable based on some of their comments on certain unrelated hypotheses (hypotheses are hypotheses; they are not facts with empirical evidence; that's the very reason they are called hypotheses). Everyone has their own hypotheses. Non-acceptance of a hypothesis in mainstream discourse doesn’t make the person making or supporting some other hypothesis unreliable as a whole. But anyway, it’s not about selectively using sources where it suits and disregarding those where it doesn’t. This POV-pushing motivation by some editors is much deeper than that. As I said, FYI, I have given up. I am not properly equipped to deal with evil of such a kind. You guys are veterans and may know what to do here better than I do. Maybe in the future, Wikipedia will be better. Right now, it’s crazy. I have fought alone for far too long. I have also messed up my studies for so many days. I have a big career-changing exam coming up in November. I’ll be mostly absent here. But as I said, haters outnumber at least 5 to 1, so I don’t know how even you or others will be able to keep up with this. Well, I am only 27 years old, so I have my whole life to get back at these people properly. For Wikipedia, I don’t care about it intensely anymore. Thanks and have a good day. DangalOh (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, This is to inform you that @Anshu1799 is continuously making personal attacks on me on my talk page and other places, He also threatened me for consequence and accusing me of jealousy. I've done anti vandalism edits on many articles but never ever i've seen a toxic editor like him. I want you to check his recent edits where he added dubious content based on same Non-reliable sources which were removed from Rajpurohit. I hate to doubt him without proof for edit warring on Rajpurohit with IP but literally all of his edits are directly/indirectly related to Rajpurohit which points towards his edits based on POV. He does not even cares for Wikipedia rules even after i told him about the rules and policies with relevant links.

I am not going to interact with this user neither i will revert any of his POV push additions backed by dubious non academic sources as i don't like personal attacks and don't know how to deal with such toxic editors threatening me on Wikipedia. You must look into this before he vandalises and adds POV push, False content on different articles. Thank you. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock Ratnahastin (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk Hello, So when this guy @Vedant Katyayanis proved to be a sacrilege to my caste Rajpurohit, this is how he approaches a new editor. I have no personal grudges but he is continuously after my caste and community and is indulged in profane acts. He has no right and nor he is crediclke enough to portray my caste, my identity, my ethnicity in such malicious ways. He has hidden all the true information and projected his point of view. Who gives him the right to curb freedom of speech of others and that too of those who belong to that particular ethnic group. and threatening ? you attack on my culture and history and I should not warn you ? Don't act fool. your acts of vandalism will be surely punished.@Fylindfotberserk please check the amount of substantial matter he has deleted on the Rajpurohit caste page. Its my humble request to kindly restore our caste information and block this bogus user with vested interests. REGARDS Anshu1799 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedant Katyayan and Anshu1799: I'd suggest you two to settle this in Talk:Rajpurohit, without edit warring in the article itself. Ask for a third opinion and/or dispute resolution if necessary. Note that WP:HISTRS compliant sources are to be used in such articles, as well as WP:independent, meaning sources coming from authors belonging to that caste would be considered less reliable. I'd also suggest you guys to maintain WP:CIVIL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk I respect your suggestions sir. I will try my best to do whatever it takes and I am not going to personally message anything at all to him but one thing is for sure he has fiddled and attacked on my identity and raised questions on my ancestors. This is no less than a war because if he would have been a historian I would have argued and counter argued with evidences but any random individual who himself lacks knowledge is not at all credible to demean a whole community. Without any knowledge, he has given his verdict about the history of generations of warriors and is blatantly forcing his version.

If the true version of my community is not restored and revived under able leadership of respected senior editors like you sir, I will certainly appeal to higher authorities and take action.

REGARDS Anshu1799 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even while replying you he made personal attack on me. Can you enlighten me about the way to report such users who make personal attacks? It's quite irritating when he claims random obscure author as world's most renown historian even though i've never heard about him and his source is non academic.

Regarding edits related to Rajpurohit, I'll not make any edits even when i'll see pure Vandalism as it's none of my business, forget edit warring. I have no interest in getting personally attacked by someone due to issue i'm not personally concerned with. I have informed you so that you can take this situation in your hand and act accordingly. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk Vedant Katyayan (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedant Katyayan Dare not insult historians and authors. If you have not heard of them it is you who lacks knowledge. Read more, search more and educate yourself. Who are you to judge ? Senior editors are asking to read and reach to a conclusion and you are calling authors obscure ? Your illiteracy is none of anyone else's problem. @Fylindfotberserk His insulting notions are unbearable. I mentioned him 3 historians- 2 of them are from 20th century era and the 1 which even they followed was a live account of 17-18th centuries. How dare he calls such senior personalities as random and obscure ? People like him should be suspended. Kindly adjudicate sir. Anshu1799 (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshu1799 Name all 3 authors here and cite their source here in a proper way once again. Let @Fylindfotberserk verify their authenticity. To be honest, i searched about the authors of your poorly cited references on google and found nothing. I already asked you yesterday to give me references by citing them properly and i will be the one editing on your side, i even provided you link on how to cite. You still didn't provided me single authentic academic reliable source but just blabbering same thing again and again while attacking and threatening me personally. This is not how it should be done on Wikipedia. Your claims sound more like puffery. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must know that i am all here for a Civil discussion and will surely make changes as per you if you provide me authentic sources by properly citing them. I would suggest you to research more and find some authentic well published sources by some reliable historians or scholars. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you ? Are you some renowned historian ? Are you the owner of wikipedia ? Are you the judge of ICJ ? You're not credible to judge sources man. Mind your own business and Get a life. But just for @Fylindfotberserk I will mention the sources. Sir I might not be very good with formatting in wikipedia but certainly my knowledge is authentic. these are the most authentic sources in the world for the cast Rajpurohits, which I myselk have studied all the books for my research papers:

1. This is the Bible (revised version) for Rajpurohit caste history -- https://rgbooks.net/shop/raj-history-culture/rajpurohit-jati-itihas-1-2/

2. THIS BOOK IS IN OXFORD LIBRARY, ENGLAND

https://rgbooks.net/shop/biography-festival/veer-kesarisingh-rajpurohit-ka-jasprakash/

3. THIS IS THE EARLY 18TH CENT ACCOUNT BY CHARAN POET KARNIDAAN JI WHO USED TO WRITE LIVE ACCOUNTS OF BATTLEFIELDS; IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET IN ORIGINAL FORM BUT I HOPE THIS IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ASSURE AUTHENTICITY

https://archive.org/details/suraj-prakash-of-kaviya-karnidanji-series-no.-67-rajasthan-puratan-granthmala

4. There are some other authors like Zahoor khan, Nagar, NS Bhati, etc but I personally have not read them entirely so didn't mention.

ALSO DR PRAHLAD SINGH RAJPUROHIT has been honoured by the state and is the most authentic personality in this topic (Rajpurohits). I hope all of this info is sufficient enough to fall under "reliable sources".

REGARDS Anshu1799 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool down, @Anshu1799

Do you realise that none of these are Wikipedia:Reliable sources ?

In first 2 links given by you of books of Prahlad Singh Rajpurohit(Cannot find much info about him on google), There is no way to verify if whatever you are claiming is indeed mentioned in that book or not as your links are for buying that book not to read. Please mention links where it can be read online by other editors.

3rd source you cited by Karnidanji is as unreliable as it can be and is bardic in nature. Bardic literature may have classical value but No historical value hence it isn't taken as something reliable by Mainstream historians.

I would suggest you not to panic and to understand that the current Version on Rajpurohit isn't permanent. It can be expanded by citing sources from mainstream historians. Even after all those personal attacks, i am willing to help you as much as i can if you discuss it with me in langauge of civility.

Also all these rules do not only apply to the article of your concern but to every article on Wikipedia. I can assure you if you show me such imperfections in other articles, i will remove them too.

I request @Fylindfotberserk to check his sources. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See @Vedant Katyayan you need to understand a few things.

First, not everything great in the world has to be necessarily available on google. Yes I admit that the author's information is not easily available on internet but then most of the senior historians and researchers are popular in literary world and print media and not on social networking platforms. I will try to create a wiki page on such authors but what's been my experience here, I have to give a second thought.

However, when you visit these sites and look for cover page and preface of books you will find authentic isbn and author's name. For exact page wise validation you have to purchase the book and read. These can't be available online as these are premium books, can't be pirated. That's another reason to believe that it is authentic.

Second, You are absolutely right that bardic literature is a sensitive thing because it can be subjective but to say it has no historical value , that's incorrect. Our histories have survived more due to bardic literature than actual foreign authored books. Don't forget that we are talking about centuries before, and this subject is history and culture. we are not talking about science. Don't objectify each and everything in history. As long as we mention the correct sources, it shall be acceptable and not deleted. Even for a hypothesis on wiki, we mention the sources and it works. Then these are the absolute live witness accounts. there should be no issues in incorporating them as long as we mention the right names. Its up to the reader if he wants to believe or not. History comes from various sources and your job is to put them on the plate unbiased. let the reader taste it with his own belief system.

Third, DR PRAHLAD SINGH RAJPUROHIT is the "mainstream historian". You will not know it. Many researchers and scholars of history of Rajasthan have researched under him, including me. He was the first ever to compile discrete and scattered evidences of historical facts related to rajpurohits. You will never ever find a more reliable man in this context in the world. There are high chances that anyone else would have probably taken it from his research.

See brother, I am an educated man with a lot of research on the history of Rajasthan. I know civility but what pisses me off is distortion and monopolised manipulation of history. I don't know which part of the world or culture you belong to but we are talking about some of the best warriors and rulers of their times. Imagine someone with no knowledge about history(suppose you yourself) come across this page and find that Rajpurohits were mere brahmins probably pandits. THE END. Just because of your rigid endeavour, a misconception spreads. Would this ever be acceptable by the members of the community and people who know history ? If you would have done this on a scientific topic, I would not have minded but this is a very sensitive issue. People have fought and died for legacies and you will erode it all just because of an editing privilege ? Sorry, not acceptable.

Yes I agree that you are better acquainted with wikipedia rules and conduct and everything but when we talk about the actual matter/ content, it is non negotiable. No distortion of even a single fact is tolerable.

To end this, I would just say- the true version has to be put up there. The best option would be to grant me editing rights. If not possible, I had already posted, you or some senior editor revert it. if that also not working, delete the entire page and I will create a new and authentic page. Do whatever is within the framework of wiki but the correct thing has to be there. If at all you wish to end this dispute. Anshu1799 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshu1799 I have already mentioned it multiple times before to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources thoroughly.

I'm not rejecting historical authenticity of Bardic literature as it depends on source to source but you can only cite sources from well known mainstream Historian and sources which can be read by other editors and readers.

For example, Ain-i-Akbari can be said as historical source but it can't be cited directly on Wikipedia. Content of such literature can only be mentioned if it's quoted by some mainstream modern historian and you are citing it from his book. Many mainstream historians have quoted Bards and such literature in their books. I would suggest you to take some time and do research from modern academic sources where historians write history based on other primary historical sources only like Annals & Antiquities of Rajasthan where the author also quoted bardic literature.

Reverting to your preferred version may get me into trouble now due to me getting into edit warring. I doubt if that version you want to restore will ever get restored as there are many problems with that version as explained by me on Talk:Rajpurohit.

You can approach other experienced editors and admins too meanwhile but they will tell you the same thing.

I request you to Do some research and reach me on my Talk page to explain what changes you want to make while citing reliable sources. I will surely help you in expanding that article. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother @Vedant Katyayan, if you don't get digital book of something, then it is not reliable ? and whatever books I mentioned it is no longer original "research", it is well established academics now in Rajasthan and even reached Oxford as I mentioned, so it is "academic enough". Order them and read the paperback version. How can wiki only include so called popular books and simply negate other books. This will restrict valuable information. Is wikipedia a regional centre ? If it is global, it needs to incorporate varied sources. I don't know the exact rules. maybe you are wrong or is it a problem with wiki. This is a restriction to freedom of expression. @Fylindfotberserk @anidiony

If reverting gets you in trouble then you at first place should not have messed up with things you don't understand. This makes me annoyed, Now if I will say anything you will find it rude. EDIT OR INVOLVE YOURSELF IN ONLY THOSE TOPICS IN WHICH YOU POSSESS SOME KNOWLEDGE OR ARE WELL VERSED. THATS THE REASON I LIMIT MYSELF TO ONLY PAGES RELATED TO HISTORY OF RAJASTHAN.

See, I will not buy into the statement that nothing can be done and it will remain as it is and only when any "popular sources" will come then something can be added. How will the popular sources come ? there are no other direct sources. HISTORY DOES NOT WORK THE WAY WIKIPEDIA OR YOU WANT. WIKKIPEDIA HAS TO EMBIBE WHAT HISTORY IS IN ITS ACTUAL FORM.

I will repeat very soberly. Since you began this and you know wiki technicalities better, either do something and restore or provide me the chance to restore the true information, or else I will have to appeal at higher levels of organisation or whatever it will take. Further course of action will put you in trouble or not, I really can't say as of now. But the current changes that you made are derogatory and unacceptable, both as a member of caste as well as historian. I can even demand reliable sources from you for what statements you made and on the limited content you left up there. You won't be able to defend yourself then. Although I should be furious but again I request and with all humility I ask you to do something as soon as possible, otherwise I need to move up. Anshu1799 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk sir, i today uploaded an image of a director general of police of Haryana from Haryana police official website and the picture got nominated for speedy deletion. Sir i want to know that in many places i see that there are pictures available on Wikipedia which are under Government of India license on many articles. Thats why sir i am asking should i use images from this site or not Haryana Police Official site or how do i identify these such websites. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Did you take permission from the department as stated here? The user who flagged this image tagged it as a "possible copyvio" for the very same reason. There is a governmental exemption as defined here, but not sure whether it is included. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i mailed haryana police department but I didn’t received any response from them then i called the administration department of Haryana Police for asking manually and then some their PA attended the call and said that if i am creating Biography page on their department former DGP then they said sir u can use their image for such good work. TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: It got deleted I see. I believe you'll need an email response from the Haryana Police Department authorizing the use of the image. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, a head of police of a state i.e, Director General of Police who has received President’s police medal which is highest medal for police officer in india and also have the longest tenure as dgp in the state does this makes him notable ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: I believe the person should be widely covered in WP:Independent sources for multiple events. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But sir he was dgp during 2006 and then the media was not much active as today and sir if he was a dgp for 6 years in haryana then surely there would be a good coverage of him i think TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Yes, but you have to prove that through media coverage. I'd suggest, you start a draft. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Sir A sockpuppet is constantly putting unsourced content on the wikipage Uddhav Thackeray,After removing his unsourced edits,he is harassing me on my talk page. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 )

Regards Io5678 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: Thank you . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk sir, i am currently working on archiving references of articles to prevent link rot in future but sir i am archiving the sources one by one. Is there any method thorugh which we can archive multiple sources in one click like 5 to 10 references in one click. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Thanks for asking. Please visit this link. Once there, click the "Run-bot" drop-down list, you'll get three options. The first one is for a single page, the second for a bunch of pages that you want to que. Since, I've rarely used the tool, I cheeked it today on one article, it worked fine. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Karimganj district has once again been moved to Sribhumi district by User:Jor.langneh without reaching a consensus on the talk page. The name should be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, as a native of Assam, I can confirm that Karimganj is the more popular name and is still in use. Aryan 04:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to see this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aryan, the move was done when I was unaware move required consensus or policies to be followed. I did two move each time I thought they have been fulfilled. Rest assured, I was just trying to bring latest info to Wikipedia. User:Jor.langneh 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your intent to provide updated information is appreciated, Wikipedia relies on consensus and moving disputed pages without proper discussion can disrupt community efforts. Please review the guidelines and engage in discussions before making such changes in the future. Aryan 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please keep an eye on caste articles related to Punjab, especially that of Jats and Khatris. Proxies belonging to Truthfindervert have been targetting them for a while now. Most recent example being Hans (clan). Watch out for incomprehensible or gibberish edit summaries, they are tale tell signs of this particular sockmaster. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk:

Devendra Fadnavis is currently Chief Minister of Maharashtra but I see that you are keen to remove Prefix and Suffix no matter whoever every. I see that your political inclination is shown through these acts which is condemnable

@OrthosKral: For a comment like that, why shouldn't I report you to the admins? Read WP:CIVIL, and consider it a warning. People with actual political inclinations have a habit of name calling others. Perhaps you should learn to read edit summaries as well. I've mentioned the policy clearly (WP:NCIN) per which you can't add honorifics in India-related biography articles and everywhere the name is invoked. This policy was the culmination of a consensus that primarily discussed the politician biographies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a core policy. The onus to provide a citation is on he/she/they who insert the content. Unsupported claims/contents are to be deleted, especially in BLP pages. Zh Wiki Jack ★ Talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhwiki2943: Apart from the ones cn-tagged, rest were sourced. You have removed some of the sourced ones also. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of edit summaries is to inform why content is altered or removed. In one case the citation did not support the content it was attached to. In the other case the source was a poor quality/unreliable source. Such sourcing cannot be used in such a controversial BLP article.Zh Wiki Jack ★ Talk — Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhwiki2943: You are wrong on both accounts. First, the line → "He was a member of the Bihar State Bharatiya Janata Party's 16-member state election committee" in this version is supported. What's not supported by the inline citation is this part → "State Minister (independent charge) of the "Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises", but there are two references in the (very visible redundant) "Positions held" section, supporting it. A diligent editor wouldn't have missed those. Second, are you trying to claim that the Cabinet Minister of Textiles didn't win the seat he represents just because you think the incline citation isn't reliable enough? That'd be one of the dumbest things to assume. And no, Prabhat Khabar, a notable newspaper since the early 1980s, isn't unreliable. And why do I feel this isn't your first rodeo here? And why are you explaining me edit summaries? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review these edits that inserted genetic information into the Bhil article? - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: It should be removed per consensus at WP:INB, also I see WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a cup of tea, hope you like it. Thanks for agreeing on helping in future. Taabii (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having tea as of now, coincidence! . Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk Have one more cup 🍵 from my side, hehe. Enjoy — Taabii (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir i want some help from you. I want to add some photos of Gayatri Devi in their Wikipedia article because currently this article don’t have any pics of her. Photos are available on Charan Singh Archives see this. I have mailed the archives and i have talked to the chairman that i require photos for her wikipedia article and they mailed me that i can use these photos for Wikipedia and they send me 5 to 6 photos of her in full resolution through G drive. TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: OK, did you upload those in commons? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as of now TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: You can ask an admin at commons or you can upload it and wait. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 42#Possible IP-range sock and my heads-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 54#A heads-up - India/South Asia topics, unsourced additions, dozens of DABlinks, IPs in the 2409: range. They're back, as 2409:40E1:D:C4F2:8000:0:0:0. Double sigh. Narky Blert (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: What a mess. Thanks for the heads up. I've ban reverted them in two articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fylindfotberserk ! Please join the discussion: Talk:Lingayatism#Requested move 14 December 2024, for retitling of page to "Lingayats". The page title is misleading as explained in the proposal. Your Vote Matters, Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Fylindfotberserk, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, –Davey2010 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

LukeEmily (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fylindfotberserk, Hope you are doing well. Can we please discuss how can we move protected page - Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I am not that experienced here on wiki, You help is much appreciated. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Doing fine thank you . You need to have a move request RfC at the talk page as detailed in WP:RM. Considering the instructions at the talk page header, it seems nigh impossible, but you can try. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: Thank you and Happy Holidays! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Happy Holidays! Better late than never, right? I hope Santa brought you presents... How's everything going here? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JurassicClassic767: Happy Holidays! I'm fine, how are you? Long time no see, man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty good myself. The past year I just wasn't into it as much as before, but things could always change though... Keep up the good work man! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JurassicClassic767: Thanks man .. Dad died last year all of a sudden, I wasn't myself for months... - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's so sad to hear... Hope you're doing much better since then! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JurassicClassic767: Yup, much better than before. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk, I noticed you reverted my recent edit where I added the #:~:text= fragment to the URL in the citation. I wanted to provide some clarification on why I made this change.

The source was already present in the article, and my edit was aimed at improving the user experience, especially for readers whose browsers support the #:~:text= feature. This allows them to be directed straight to the relevant section of the lengthy article, making it easier to verify the information. For users whose browsers don’t support this functionality, the URL still works as a standard link, and they can manually navigate to the source.

I understand that compatibility concerns might arise, but I believe this small enhancement can provide significant convenience for users who benefit from it. I would be happy to hear your thoughts and discuss further if you have any concerns.

Click here to know my name (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheikbaba36524: Thanks for communicating. Apart from the compatibility issues, it is problematic for web archivers to parse it. Secondly, the Wiki article refers more than one section of the magazine, so linking it to a particular section isn't that helpful. Third, a quotation (parameter supported by CS templates) is more helpful IMO. Fourth, for the sake of parity we should be doing that to most/all of the citations, but should we? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk,Thank you for your detailed response! I understand the concerns you've raised regarding compatibility, web archiving, and consistency across citations. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my reasoning.

My main goal with the #:~:text= feature was to enhance user experience, especially for readers who may find it helpful to be directed directly to a specific part of the article. However, I recognize that this feature may pose challenges for web archiving and may not be compatible across all platforms.

To address the issues you've pointed out, I am happy to modify the approach by including a direct quote from the article instead. This should improve accessibility and help users see the relevant part of the source immediately, without the need to navigate through a lengthy article. I will also keep the link to the full source, allowing users who want to explore more details to do so.

I believe this will provide a good balance between user experience, consistency, and archiving. Thank you again for your feedback, and I look forward to collaborating on this further. Click here to know my name (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheikbaba36524: I've already added a quote (using CS |quote= parameter) in my follow-up edits to the article. Could you kindly demonstrate here using that reference. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk,Thank you for your follow-up and for adding the quote using the |quote= parameter. I appreciate your swift action in implementing that.

To demonstrate using the reference, here is an example of how the citation with a direct quote can be formatted:

This citation includes the direct quote you added, the URL of the article, and the access date.

Thanks again for your collaboration on this. I hope this aligns with your expectations, and I’m happy to discuss further if needed.

Best regards, Click here to know my name (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added that line and a bit more here, since the source is used for more than the dry fruit trader part. I hope it helps. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylindfotberserk (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that line and for expanding the quote! I appreciate your efforts to ensure the citation is thorough and useful. I’m glad we could work together to improve the article.

Best regards,Click here to know my name (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheikbaba36524: Thank you and most welcome. Happy editing and Happy Holiday! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thank you very much and same to you . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Deols are Jatt Sikh in my Punjab. how did they not become Sikhs. you can search about it. the rest of it is Jatt not Jat. you are making a spelling mistake. Amarinder Dhaliwal (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amarinder Dhaliwal: You can't be sure about every instance. Secondly, Dharmendra himself said he is a Hindu in an old interview, also them being associated with Arya Samaj is sourced. Third, the current version is sourced after a discussion here with another user. Fourth the word Jat and Jat Sikh are the WP:COMMONNAMES in Wikipedia which we need maintain throughout instead of regional pronunciation like Jatt, Jaat, Jutt, Zutt, etc. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okk. Thanks for discussing with me on this topic. Amarinder Dhaliwal (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk sir, recently i had gone through the patiala state article and i had done some changes in it as per a reliable book by Lepel Griffin but an editor reverted my edits. Sir there are no doubt that the patiala state was ruled by the Jats of Sidhu Clan of Sikh religion as per many reliable books and sources. Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: Not sure what they mean by "not the background of its rulers" when that version is all about the background of the rulers. I don't see much difference between the two versions, except the mention of Jat, removal of which is kinda ironic since Sidhu and Sidhu-Brar are mentioned in the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir that’s why i also got confused. Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fylindfotberserk sir, today i started to improve Bharatpur state article tone but a editor reverted my edits saying that i made the tone more worse. Sir please check my edits. Are they making the article worse or improved than previous tone. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir yesterday i improved the tone of lead section of Bharatpur State article but today a user removed the whole paragraph about Lohagarh fort which is one of the most important example of architecture of Bharatpur stating that the lead section is too long. And he didn'write the same paragraph in body , he only removed the whole content. Pleased sir look into this. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda: This version (admin edit) before your additions to the lead includes the mention of Lohagarh Fort in the lead (twice including the mention of Deeg Palace). In this version, you've added information of when the fort was build; by whom; its architecture and the etymology of its name, which are too detailed / WP:UNDUE to be in the lead of an article about Bharatpur State,. Only the mention of it's name in the lead is enough. You may, if necessary, write these in brief in the article body, since there is already an article on Lohagarh Fort for such details. I see you've opened a discussion with the other user in the relevant talk page. That's good. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you deleted the section titled Bhutan on the Darjeeling talk page? I understand I wasn’t supposed to delete the section on official languages however I wanted to start a new discussion about the usage of official names in the lede. Thanks AtishT20 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AtishT20: I already answered that here. That section on 'Official languages' was used by another user as well. Why not start a new discussion? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit mate on the talk page at 16:48 on 04/01/2025 you can see I made a new discussion called Bhutan. What I meant to say is why did you replace that section with the official languages section. I know now that I shouldn’t have removed that discussion but what I meant to ask is why couldn’t we keep both discussions up? You can see on the talk page that the discussion titled Bhutan wasn’t there before another user reverted it. Thanks AtishT20 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AtishT20: Obviously we could "keep both discussions up". I found your removal of older discussion disruptive, hence made a revert using a tool which removed it, and suggested a new discussion. The onus was upto you to keep the older discussion intact or restore it after my changes, which was restored anyway by another user. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.. all I wanted to know why the new discussion wasn’t there. Happy to see the other user has fixed it AtishT20 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]