User talk:58.182.176.169

Welcome![edit]

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kro[edit]

Drafts

1. Draft:List of Indian Armed forces and military topics
2. Draft:Shyok (village)

Build maps

1. use SnazzyMaps

To be created

1. Operation Ababeel articles on redlinks inside
2. Indian Army Medical Corps
3. Mahajan Field Firing Range
4. List_of_Dolmens#India articles on redlinks inside
5. List_of_districts_of_Ladakh#List towns first as these are subdiv tehsils and blocks
6. National Research Institute for Sowa-Rigpa at Leh from Ladakh#Traditional_medicine
7. 25 villages from here https://journals.openedition.org/emscat/2647?lang=en

1. Rangrik, surveyed but as of July 2020 no progress has been made.^[1] Will be closest ALG to Chumar, Kaurik, and Tashigang-Shipki La disputed area.^[1]

1. Rework Siachen Base Camp (India) and Actual Ground Position Line from

https://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140413/pers.htm#1 https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/the-story-of-how-siachen-was-won-as-told-by-narendra-bull-kumar/347940 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/everyday-there-is-a-story-recall-army-officers-who-served-at-siachen-glacier/ http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/sonam-a-legend-whose-legacy-will-go-on-a-tribute-to-legends-of-siachen/ http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/siachen-glacier-battling-on-the-roof-of-the-world/2/

1. Find redlinks in Tourism in Ladakh, Actual Ground Position Line also update AGPL summary alignment in section lede from openStreetMapand find redlink from Saltoro Mountains

In 2018, following 5 road routes were opened for the tourists by the Government of India (GoI), all of these are located above the altitude of 14,000 ft, and the maximum limit of travel permit was raised from 7 days to 15 days:^[2]

1. Karzok-Nurbo-Sumdo-Parangla-Kaza road
2. Merak, Ladakh-Loma Bend road
3. Chushul-Kartsangla-Mahe, Ladakh road
4. Durbuk-Shachu-Tharuk-Sato Kargyam-Parma-Erath, Ladakh-Chushul-Loma,Ladakh-Hanle road
5. Agham, Ladakh-Shyok-Durbuk road

Treks include Manali to Ladakh, the Nubra valley, Pangong tso, Tso moriri, the Indus Valley.^[3], Markha valley, Ladakh monastery trek, South Zangskar, Trans-Zangskar Expedition, Spiti to Ladakh, Spiti to Pitok to Hemis, Rupshu, the Great Salt lakes, Chadar Ice trek^[4] Other treks are Padum-Manali, Padum-Phuktal, Padam-Darcha, Panikhar-Heniskot, Lamayuru-Martselang, Lamayuru-Alchi, Kala Pattar trek, and Pahal, Ladakh.

1. Khartse Khar^[5][6]
2. Apati, Ladakh^[7]
3. Sham Valley and redirect here from Sham valley, Shaam Valley, Shaam Valley, Shaam (Ladakh) and Shaam, Ladakh, see Politics_of_Ladakh#New.^[8]

1. Geography of Siachen
2. Nav template for template:Geography of Siachen, template:Borders of India, template:Siachen conflict, template:India-Pakistan border including IB and Line of Actual Control and within which show main sectors with BMP and BP and Patrol Points, military and air bases, transport and road infrastructure; template:India-Pakistan border including main crossings and transport as well as differentiate SC / IB / LoC / AGPL and within them their start and end pt with key army camps and geo features / villages / peaks / rivers, and key wars and battles, key heroes and honors ; template:India-Bangladesh border, template:India-Bhutan border, template:India-Nepal border, template:Bay of Bengal template:Line of Control, [[:template:]]
3. Agham, Ladakh
4. Dzingrulma is northern most civilian habitation in the Siachen sector.
5. Gayari camp
6. Panamik
7. Goma (Siachen) (valley) army base camp, subsector of Gyari, held by Pakistan
8. Conway Saddle mountain subpeak held by Pakistan in Baltoro Galacier of Baltoro Muztagh. Add geography/topogrpahy to Baltoro Muztagh to describe various features including Baltoro Galacier, Baltoro Kangri and Conway Saddle, etc.

1. Parma Valley near Thoise
2. Tiger Saddle mountain subpeak, west of Sia La, held by India
3. La Yongma Ri glacier
4. Gharkun (peak, 6620m), held by India
5. Gyong Kangri (peak, 6727m), held by India in the area of Gyong La
6. Teram Shehr Plateau, create redirect request at this to redirect to Teram Shehr and Teram Shehr plateau.
7. Draft:Panchkula-HUDA Industrial plots allotment scam

1. 1929 CLA bombing case for bombing of Central Legislative Assembly (CLA) by Bhagat Singh and associates in which bgahat received 14 yrs imprisonment. Describe the role of Sobha Singh (builder) as state witness for British raj against Bhagat Singh, take material from here on Shobha Singh's talkpage and Bhagat Singh's article. Create following redirects by submitting create redirect request at this: 1929 Central Legislative Assembly Bombing Case, 1929 Assembly Bombing Case, 1929 Delhi Assembly Bombing Case, 1929 CLA bombing case, 1929 Central Legislative Assembly bombing Case, 1929 Assembly bombing case, 1929 Delhi assembly bombing case.

1. 1929-31 Lahore Conspiracy Case take material from the 1929-31 Lahore conspiracy case. Create following redirects by submitting create redirect request at this: 1929-31 Lahore conspiracy case, Second Lahore Conspiracy Case, Second Lahore conspiracy case, 2nd Lahore Conspiracy Case, 2nd Lahore conspiracy case. Add/repipe items to "see also" of Lahore Conspiracy Case and Lahore Conspiracy Case trial.

1. Church sexual abuse cases in India
2. Sexual abuse cases in Islamic organisations and institutes in India
3. Persecution by church in India especially of Indic religions and native tribes
4. ISIS in India including Kerala modules who went overseas to Afghanistan and Seyria, as well as those Kerala-Karnataka modules involved in 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings bombings.
5. Types of jihad, at least [8 types of jihads including 1. Economic jihad (Financial or Money jihad), 2. Mediajihad (Information, Internet or Social Media jihad), 3. Physical jihad (Violent jihad) including new terminology Jihadism, 4. Population jihad]], 5. Education jihad, 6. Legal Jihad 7. Political jihad 8. Humanitarian jihad.^[9] 9. Also include Sexual jihad, 10. Love jihad (Sex jihad), 11. Peaceful jihad as explained in the Jihad article as a form of inner struggle.

Edit existing

1. 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche, convert to Gayari village by adding village details and make avalanche an anchored sections and move namespace and redirect to "2012 Gayari Sector avalanche" to the anchored section.
2. Church involvement in Fiji coups
3. Forced_conversion#Islam, add instances large scale and frequent forced conversions and also create Forced conversion to Islam by era (prolific converters), against specific religions (separately by quantum of forcibly converted and killed) and regions/nations (largest forcibly converted)
4. Criticism_of_Protestantism#Sexual_abuse_cases, especially within the context of Fiji
5. Future_of_rail_transport_in_India#Geostrategic_border_rail_lines
6. India-China_Border_Roads#Border_airport_and_AGL_projects
7. Lanzhou Military Region, s1, s2 s3,

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/diet/the-reason-why-fruits-should-be-eaten-alone-according-to-ayurveda/articleshow/77305243.cms
• https://zeenews.india.com/world/atrocities-on-uighurs-muslims-china-asks-pakistan-to-manage-negative-sentiments-domestically-2300028.html
• https://www.news18.com/news/india/temple-construction-may-signal-end-of-a-key-road-for-hindutva-politics-but-is-likely-to-open-up-new-avenues-2750957.html
• https://www.firstpost.com/india/three-reasons-why-national-education-policy-has-rattled-communists-and-rigidislamists-8664941.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/sushant-singh-rajput-s-former-cook-says-he-didn-t-see-actor-visit-a-doctor-i-was-told-it-was-rhea-chakraborty-who-sacked-me/story-MGbj0r7iZOCyPMKEcCpAuJ.html
• https://zeenews.india.com/united-nations-will-neither-use-nor-officially-endorse-the-new-nepal-map-2300004.html
• Chjina Nepal rail
• Gorkha regiment tripatriate arangement

1. History of Singapore, Sala (Thai architecture), List of countries with overseas military bases (check Pak and Turkey POV)
2. List of loanwords in Tagalog, ([file:///G:/Downloads/Download/archipel-490.pdf tamil loanwords in tagalog, malay], resource1

resource2)

1. Indian influences in early Philippine polities,

History of Indian influence on Southeast Asia,

1. Agusan image,
2. Lakshmanananda Saraswati and Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda,
3. Caste system among South Asian Muslims,
4. Zakat, Jizya, Islamic banking,
5. The Establishment (Pakistan),
6. Politically incorrect, apply PI defn, section, article see also.
7. Regressive left, (existing source
8. new source to be added)
9. Islamophobia (oz-hindu claim misrepresents source),

To watch:

1. Dynastic politics of Haryana
2. Bhupinder Singh Hooda scams to ensure its not removed from Hood's article and if removed also see response of "user Edwige9 on his talk page who had earlier removed it.

New message from DiplomatTesterMan[edit]

DTM (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jizya[edit]

Hi-- I had to revert your changes in Jizya for reasons explained on its talk page. Eperoton (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing Eperoton, I will revisit later when I have time. Its on my to do list.

Jizya, Zakat, Islamic banking and finance[edit]

Jizya, Zakat, Islamic banking and finance - thanks for making me aware of this on 29 Feb. Although I have been through it roughly (without any commenting) the articles sure are a mouthfull. And they have contributions from sooo many editors - "Zakat" has 1,133 editors while "Islamic banking and finance" has 1201 editors. (For comparison Modi's article as 2,168 editors.) DTM (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing DiplomatTesterMan, I will revisit these topcis one by one. I realised unless I am there to regularly watch and defend those would be slowly reverted< I have good grasp of those topics. In some instances where you did not have time to watch the article and just left it to others, where I have gone back to follow up on those articles, in the light of my follow up explanaiton/comment please reconsider your views/vote so that you unable to devote more attention could not be misused as a vote against my edit/proposal. I am happy to revisit those, defend those, take remedial actions. Please stay on those and lend your input, edits, and support. I love the way you rephrase and clean up. On those articles there is tiny lobby who monopolised a particular slant on the articles, hence I need to right the wrong. Thanks a lot. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

— Newslinger talk 22:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History sources[edit]

Hello, I'm Robertsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, History of Singapore, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. robertsky (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Robertsky, thanks for letting me know. I will take a look again, and will try to find few more better sources. Regard. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving largely unsourced article[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Muslim nationalism in South Asia, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Materialscientist:, 95% of the pre-exiting text in the article is unsourced WP:OR. The article also has WP:POV bias. I randomly arrived on it, I made couple of very minor changes to fix the bias, my changes were immediately reverted by you. This leads me to suspect that you are likely using some automated tool which was triggered and you did spend not sufficient time to review the article to understand the fundamental problems with the article, and simply jumped the gun to revert my efforts. My edits reverted by you were aimed at removing the WP:POV bias and my edits are less than 1% of the total content, whereas you still chose to retain the 95% unsourced original research text in the article. Why the double standard and inconsistent application of rules? This leads me to wonder (a) either you are preserving the bias and derailing the attempts to fix the bias (gaming the system), or (b) you are blindly clocking the points by reverting others/my hard work by quickly jumping the gun without properly reviewing the article (inept misuse of the tools and processes). I like to believe you might be tired, made a rare mistake, and there is no deliberate malice. Now, please do the following: (1) either restore my edits you have reverted, or (2) be "consistent" in applying these rules by deleting the remaining 95% unsourced original research content from the article, or (3) delete the whole article because it is based on only 4 sources and as it stands now it does not come across as worthy candidate for an independent article. Take your pick. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has POV bias, it is not helped by adding more POV. You need to challenge the POV on the article's talk page and get the problems fixed.

Unsourced content is not necessarily WP:OR. It may contain widely known facts, which may be easily verifiable. But labelling two-nation theory as "Islamic supremacism"? I have no idea to verify that. Nobody does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 This article is still on my to do list. I will rather nominate this article, which has 95% unsourced POV text, for the speedy deletion. Onus is on the person defending the 95% unsourced text to demonstrate why it is even a valid topic, and secondly why such large unsourced text be allowed to remain there i.e. provide line-by-line evidence-based justifiable and acceptable defense for each unsourced sentence as to why it should not be deleted. I am concerned by the fact that you or other watchers who might have issues with 0.5% unsourced text from me took no heed of the 95% unsourced/POV text in the article and progressively allowed it to accumulate over a period of time, and now you are even defending it with "vague" logic which requires more work from me. I recognise vagueism as the "wild goose chase" i.e. lots of wasted effort from me on the LOW ROI work based on a "short vague" (low effort, high deflection) counter from you. Smart but grrrr I beg you, please do not do that to me/others, hahaha. The burden of effort/work/proof lies on defenders/you if they/you wish to retain such large unsourced text. It would be ideal if the editors who majorly contributed/created it could provide the citations and further refine the article to eliminate the bias, after which I can take a stab at it. Please remember any suggestion you provide it should mean "equal or more effort from you" and "equal or less effort from me" hehehe. Be proud of me, see I am learning fast from you. Anyway, let us wait some more for Materialscientist to respond to the points I raised to him.58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmanananda murder case[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SUN EYE 1 06:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Lakshmanananda Saraswati, you may be blocked from editing. SUN EYE 1 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suneye1, I reject/refute the above warning from you as baseless. Subsequent to your warning above, I left a post on your talke page here to ask you to refrain from such dubious behavior/warnings. I also left a detailed post on the article talk page noting my concerns. I proceeded to make edits to the article to address my concerns regarding the article. I had specifically raised concerns about the potential evangelist bias on the article. My edits have largely stayed on the article, thus negating your warning. I also advise you, in future please treat all IPs with same respect as registered editors, IPs are not the soft targets. Refrain from systematically propagating any potential the evangelist bias. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is OpIndia. The discussion is about the topic OpIndia. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on sockpuppet BFDIBebble a.k.a. JJFuego[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at History of the Quran. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article if you truly feel this needs to be in the article, but please back up your citations with references. JJFuego (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi sockpuppet BFDIBebble a.k.a. JJFuego (you are a sockpuppet of banned user PKHilliam),

I refute/reject the above baseless and unwarranted warning from you.

I noticed you have been flagged several times for being a sockpuppet and there is a currently active Sockpuppet investigation against you. Stop deliberately messing with multiple unrelated editors on multiple unrelated articles in a similar dysfunctional pattern with "bamboozle all" approach. Earlier you had reverted my edits on dubious pretext to preserve your pro Islam WP:POV at the expense of academic scholarly quality of the article e.g. negative reputed scholarly journal/books based content with primary sources based low quality sources (news reports and magazines masquerading as journals). After I objected to this and made a post on your talk page here, instead of waiting for my response, you then processed with HIT WITH HAMMER approach to post warning within 2 to 4 minutes on my talk page. This comes across as a pay back warning from you. I have asked you on your talk page to stop this. Also, stop making multiple posts in many places to derail and confuse. Stick to talking in one place. No WP:GAMING. I will have to call this out and up the ante if you persist with negative tactics. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Lakshmanananda Saraswati can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Threatening to report others for "gaming the system" is not acceptable towards ANY editor, besides User:Suneye1. Please stop. BFDIBebble (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi banned sockpuppet user BFDIBebble aka JJFuego(you are a sockpuppte of banned user PKHilliam, you are a banned sockpuppet. I reject your comment and allegations.

A. Based on complaint by others and my supporting evidence submitted there against you, you have been permanently banned. This comment here from you is part of that behavior of harassment against me and multiple other users. Consequently, you have been permanently banned by the independent admins, This negates your comment/allegations.

B. As for user user Suneye1 I have left a detailed note for him on
1. Talk:Lakshmanananda Saraswati,
2. on my own wall above, and
3. as well on his own talk page.
In these 3 messages which I left for him weeks ago, I have successfully refuted his allegations, flagged his wrong behavior to him, he has not replied to any of my multiple messages in these 3 places even though he has been regularly updating wikipedia every day. Instead he has stopped trying to manipulate me because previously might have assumed Im just an IP and he can get awya by unfairly arm twisting me while continuing to edit wikipedia in WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:BIAS. He has backed off and keeping silent.

This negatives all your and his allegations. You both have been silenced following the wikipedia's due process and policies. To be precise, (a) you have been permanently banned by admins and through this message you have also violated WP:AOHA against me as it is your WP:NPA on me, and (b) the user Suneye1 has avoided the ban for now because he has stopped unfairly badgering/manipulating me/IPs at least for now. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out discussion started by sock. Aasim 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! 58.182.176.169, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment fm the vandal[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Romartus Imperator (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Romartus Imperator,

A. You are a suspected sockpuppet who resurfaced to harass me again:
I suspect you are a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT of banned user "BFDIBebble aka JJFuego" who had earlier harassed me in late April. User "BFDIBebble" was banned on 28 April 2020. Your user account Romartus Imperator was created on 2 May 2020. Immediately on 2 May 2020, you posted this unsubstantiated warning here without any supporting instance or evidence. This post by you here comes across as continuation of my harassment by your new user account "Romartus Imperator" (suspected sockpuppet of the banned user "BFDIBebble/JJFuego"). I do not recall ever having come cross you. You are a newly created account. I have made no wikipedia edits to any article after your account was created. This makes me suspect that you might be the sockpuppet who resurfaced with the purpose of attacking and harassing me.

B. Serial sockpuppet BFDIBebble has been been banned before:
The banned user "BFDIBebble/JJFuego" is a a confirmed serial sockpuppet of Spoon-on-floor, Dr D.S. Winters, PKHilliam, Smellslikevietcongtome, Senor Laughs, Sircaustix, Susborne.

C. Even if you are a standalone account, you are attacking and harassing me with unsubstantiated warning:'
In a an unlikely scenario that you are not the banned user "BFDIBebble", you have still violated WP:NPA and WP:AOHA against me in a "standalone way" because you did not cite any evidence or instance of violation by me, yet you immediately went head to hammer me with a warning without any basis.

D. I am initiating the Sockpuppet, NPA and AOHA investigations against you by the admins.
D1. Sockpuppet investigation here1.
D2. WP:NPA and WP:AOHA investigation here2.

I have left a message on your talk page to inform you.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock, struck out discussion Aasim 00:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [[User|Awesome Aasim], Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banning of sockmaster PKHilliam[edit]

Nice edit, but...[edit]

I reverted the message you left on PKHilliam's talk page. You are not a CheckUser; we already have a notice on this user's user page informing everyone that they engaged in sockpuppetry. Secondly, please do not feed the trolls. If you are just quiet about their edits, and you just ignore their messages, then they will get bored and leave on their own. These people just want to stir up drama, and by ignoring their messages, you do not incite more trolling. Aasim 18:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awesome Aasim, very good advice indeed, i.e. report and ignore the trolls. In this case his latest sockpuppet kept stalking my edits and talkpage, hence became harder to ignore. About the check users, hmm, I did not know that only certain type of users (check users) can leave the messages on the already banned user accounts. Thanks for informing me. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It is probably a good idea to leave informing users of blocks to the admins. Why not improve some stub articles? Aasim 08:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Ponyo said here: "Please leave tagging to SPI Clerks, Admins and Checkusers". Aasim 08:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Awesome Aasim,
A. Wikipedia polices: these seem to be a personal opinions.
A1. No hegemony: Wikipedia strives to be as less bureaucratic as possible and there seems to be no wikipedia policy which permits only SPI staff and prohibits others from leaving messages on the talk page of the banned users. Wikipedia's stated goal is to be "egalitarian OPEN sourced" platform and not to be "controlled by an EXCLUSIVE CLOSED knit hegemonistic hierarchical clique" of few users (SPI clerks, admins, etc).
A2. Encourage communication via talkpages: As per Wikipedia policies, anyone can leave message on others talk page.
A3. Forster transparency: What I did (message I left on a banned sockpuppet to point to new suspected sockpuppeter of that user) is a much better practice as it creates transparency.
E. Conclusion: Unless you can show me a specific passage in the wikipedia policy which prohibits me from leaving a comment on a banned user's talkpage, you have no right to revert my message on his talkpage.
E. further action needed from you: Now, please take this ACTION:
(a) either show me the specific passage prohibiting me, or
(b) if there is none, then please stop "inventing" your own rules, immediately restore my message, in future consciously do your best to eradicate hegemonic behavior from all so that we have empowered egalitarian inclusive wikipedia community.
Thanks you.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not controlled by a select few, but there are certain things that only certain privileged users are allowed to do. Now please get on to more productive editing. Saying Unless you can show me a specific passage in the wikipedia policy which prohibits me from leaving a comment on a banned user's talkpage, you have no right to revert my message on his talkpage is not really helpful and is the kind of stuff that could potentially result in sanctions. I know you are acting in good faith, but rejecting advice from your colleagues and taking policies and guidelines literally is not going to end well. Aasim 11:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, Advise should be based on the wikipedia policy. Personal WP:POV opinions are not the binding policies, ignoring those is not a violation. Sanctions can be imposed only for the violations of policies. I value policy and rules based "sensible and fair" advice and opinion of "non-patronising" editors. Please make only those claims and advice which you can substantiate and backup up by citing the specific passage in the specific policy. Please either "show me the policy" first or retract all of your comments/"opinion" above. Otherwise threatening sanctions without substantiating is WP:POV railroad which would WP:BOOMERANG on you. WP:STEWARDSHIP of SPI process in not exclusive "ownership".

I am an IP by choice, not by inexperience, i.e. I have been editing as IP for many many many years, I have avoided becoming a registered user by choice so as to have less notifications and less addiction to wikipedia, problem is that many people tend to take IPs lightly and try to bully and browbeat. Browbeating without citing the policy could earn you sanctions and revocation of your rights and tools. Why push it too far, all I asked is either show me the policy or just undo your revert. I am not taking pangga with you bhai. I see you as ally.

Please "respect my rights and the wikipedia policies" that IPs have same rights as ADMINS and SPI clerks to leave the messages on talkpages of all users.

For the record, I take a strong except to your tone of your immediately preceding comment, and strictly forbid you from inventing your own rules, and then POV pushing on others especially IPs. :: Please undo your revert and retract your POV advice and patronising message.58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you as an IP. In fact, there are some IPs (example) that have a lot of positive things to say, and I recognize that IPs are human too. I am just saying that generally, only certain users can do things as more of a technical matter. For example, only admins can leave block messages because they are the only ones that can block users. Now it would be more productive for you to work on improving articles.

And with regards to your later part of your comment, yes, user rights do not make you any more important in the community; it just means that the community trusts you with certain tasks that other users cannot do. Unfortunately, these rights, because of technical limitations, cannot be given to IP users. Aasim 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, I asked repeatedly and you have failed to show me a policy which specifically says only checkusers can leave messages on banned users talkpage. Checkusers "exclusive" rights are limited to "only checkusers can ban", and wikipedia policies encourage users to communicate via talkpages and create transparency. If you can not show me a policy and you do not undo your reverts to my edits, then I will go ahead to reinstate my message on PKHilliam talkpage.

Awesome Aasim, Please drop your patronising tone, stop telling me to do useful edits while you are the one wasting my productivity with your POV bad advice (inventing your own rule that only checkusers can leave messages on banned users talkpage) and bullying tone (threat of sanctions) which encroaches on my rights to leave message on banned users talkpage. You cant encroach upon others rights in condescending manner. This tone and attitude is annoying. It is not a matter of ego for me. It is a matter of enforcing the egalitarian principals. You need an immediate behavioral correction. I want that acknowledgement from you that you are open to receiving constructive advice and not just dishing out unsubstantiated POV advice with threats of sanctions. I do not want checkuser rights, please do not ascribe meaning or words to my messages. I just want you to (a) please drop the patronising tone, ref WP:RTV, (b) don't invent own rule (WP:POV), (c) follow your own advice of listening to others (in this case, stop dishing one sided patronising advice with threats of sanctions, START listening to my advice to you to start respecting wikipedia policy), so far your tone comes across as "supremacist" who can give advice but "too good or above others in own eyes" to be open to receive constructive advice from others, (d) undo your WP:POV reverts to my message, (e) stop wasting time please (just undo your revert and inform me here, and we are done, we both move on to productive stuff). Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I reached out to an admin Ferret on Discord and they said the same thing. Now it would be better for you to move on to something else that is more productive. Probably one of the tasks I listed above... Aasim 13:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, You are skirting around the issues. you have not addressed any of the specific issues I highlighted (show me the policy which says non-checkusers can not post messages on blocked users talkpage), nor you have undertaken remedial action (undo your reverts to my message on PKHilliam). The issue is not closed unless you undertake the remedial action, otherwise it becomes a case of you unfairly reverting my message and browbeating me to put up with it, this bullying is not unacceptable. Fix it, or I will report you, this has gone on far too long, you are wasting too much if my time on my own talkpage with flimsy ploys.

Stop namedropping admins, etc. First, you dropped the name but did not show/pipe/link the discussion you had with Ferret, I checked his talkpage and there is no discussion there. Secondly, even admins can not invent their new POV rules which are in violation of wikipedia rules of any one can post messages on others talkpage. Admins have some extra rights, only the "specified rights" which even admins can not misuse, admins can not invent their new rules/policies, when admins are giving their POV then it is as an ordinary editor and not as admin and that POV does not count if it violates wiki policy. Third, concept of consensus does not apply here i.e. multiple editors pushing/giving a wrong advice. Fourth, if you want, you can create a "consensus" to have the policy amended which specifically states that only checkusers can post on the talkpage of banned users, unless this amendment to policy is done you can not unfairly encroach upon my rights to leave a message on banned users talkpage.

In short, you made a mistake, just fix it. Why drag it on by making an ego issue, making wrong revert, issuing wrong POV advice, incorrectly/unfairly issuing threats of sanctions even though there is no violation, repeatedly not addressing any of the specific issues I raised, then still trying to silence me by name dropping without piping the evidence of your discussion with those you have named dropped, even the name dropping and evidence of discussion does not supersede the wikipedia policy "IP can leave message on banned users talkpage" (no prohibition on IPs, only POV opinions of "self-entitled" supremacist clerks/admins, I will have to then start reporting them to revoke their entitlements). You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate (by citing the specific policy passage) why your reverts are justified. Now you are starting to demonstrate a disturbingly disruptive "behavioral" pattern. Please just end this issue, please immediately undo your reverts to my message on PKHilliam's talkpage. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged here, I'll note that your messages on PKHilliam sock talk pages serve no purpose at all other than to provide the sockmaster with more attention, which is exactly what they want. The accounts are blocked and tagged which provides any editor who happens to their user pages with all of the information needed; your messages are superfluous and silly. Furthermore, the entire discussion above is completely over the top. Again, all of the time you are investing in leaving unnecessary, counter-productive messages on blocked sock talk pages and then defending those messages here just feeds the trolls. I have no intention in engaging with you further as the various posts on this talk page demonstrate it would be an exercise in futility and a time sink on my part.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, hahaha Ponyo, okay I will let it pass and this discussion ends here, since you and Awesome Aasim are saying the same thing. The way you explain, I do get the point about feeding the trolls, and it makes sense, Aasim had made the similar point too. Now I am thinking that leaving too many messages on a blocked users talkpage may bury the "banning message", so perhaps better to leave it untouched as you guys suggested. However, I am still bit disappointed, both of you have not acknowledged my core point "refrain from replying in a way which comes across as if certain editors own wikipedia and they have power hierarchies". Thanks for posting here, you made us laugh and thats the end of this discussion. As for Aasim, I LIKE HIM because he went beyond call of duty to collect the evidence which I as the original complainant should have done. I was confused why a good hearted guy keeps going on and on to harp. Aasim, I still like you, please use a non condescending tone while explaining your rational e.g. "there is no policy against IP posting on banned users talkpage, general consensus among checkusers is to not post more stuff on their talkpage so that the only posts visible to the visitors is the ban message, however to address your transparency concern that others are aware of all his sockuppets we already have a automated process to capture/ensure that". Anyway guys, thank you both for your time, Aasim for patience and Ponyo for the fun comment, man I love you, your sense of humor, hahaha. ciao. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence added against sockmaster PKHilliam[edit]

And I did open another sockpuppet investigation because beyond a reasonable doubt, and I even provided evidence, that Romartus Imperator may be another sock. Aasim 11:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, Well done. Thank you for that. Yes, I too should have collected more evidence. In this instance you went beyond whats your duty calls for, good job. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Aasim 11:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And sure enough, an admin blocked that account. Quack quack. 🦆 Aasim 16:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim Thank you for informing me. Can you please share few tips with me. Next time around I want to be able to find and supply evidence at the time of reporting a suspected sockpuppet. What are the quick things to check/review (without any tools to spot the evidence of a sock? Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment may be very general, but there are a few parts of this comment that are specific to Wikipedia.

The key to identifying sockpuppets without any technical tools is to look at the user's contributions. If two accounts act extremely similarly to each other, then there is the possibility that they are a sockpuppet. Another thing is that if there are a bunch of "throwaway" accounts that seem to only be making edits in one topic area, then that is something to draw suspicion. At the end of the day, you need to show that two accounts are acting extremely similar to each other. This wikiHow article may help.

In short: if you see two accounts acting extremely similar to one another, then there is the chance that they are sockpuppets. Another thing I learned is that it is physically impossible for sockpuppets to edit at exactly the same time, so grouping all of the suspected sock's contributions might help as well. I remember twice a few months ago I was able to catch sock bots creating a bunch of spam articles on wikiHow. I was and still am not an admin there. I just used the fact that the socks were creating a bunch of jewelry spam articles to build my case to the admins and check users there. Aasim 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dharmaśāstra into Shastra. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Apologies. I did several edits to large numbers of pages continuously over 18 hours. I did try to attribute wherever I copy pasted, seems I inadvertently missed out on this on. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness[edit]

I am posting here mainly to say that had there been simple fixes to your text, I would have executed them, but when the first dozen changes one looks at seem unconstructive, one is disinclined to wade through the rest. Secondarily, you are extremely UNLIKELY to succeed in making very major changes to a fairly contentious topic, without first making a case as to why/what actually needs changing, and without knowing the books about the subject (we have a long-term convention on the article, that examples of people simply using the term, of which there are millions, are to be avoided). I personally don't think the PC article is very good, but I doubt if it is for the same reasons as yourself.

Generally, it is better to communicate on the article talk page, but I am responding here to the specifics of your post on my page. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, thanks for responding here. It helps me to understand the previously unstated dynamism among editors watching the article. I had not expected it to be contentious or such high resistance topic. I have listed my rationale/justification (make the case) in the earlier longer discussion as well in the itemized proposals. Perhaps there is past history of toxic content disputed on that article, which might have made some watchers of the article jaded and bitter. If so, sad to know this. It takes away the fun of editing, Ii come to wiki for my "love of learning" and I edit on wiki because of "passion for dissemination".

I do not assume other editors have less knowledge. I have PhD from a globally top ranked uni, it gives me no better rights over a 14 years old IP kid editing with a valid sources. Anyone can add the article to watchlist and they become steward, but no one WP:OWNs the article, not me with PhD, nor the 14yrs old kid editor, nor any other book readers, in that sense the open-source wikipedia is very egalitarian. I understand you are trying to explain that some people might feel higher degree of rights or ownership, etc which might affect how they react on talkpage and to edits those not from the in-group or not like-minded. I had been editing as IP for years, didn't register user name because less attachment to topics, easy to edit, forget, walkaway, less notifications, less addiction to wiki, more "real life", I keep very very few apps. I have experience in editing, but I have not been in edit disputes except minor issues which were all easily resolved.

I purposefully avoid edit disputes, one of the main reason i do not want to register as user, I realised, some of my valid well-sourced edits were removed from other articles after surviving for months (often just reverted from unwatched or less watched) because I was not there to watch the article for not having the user account. Hence, I decided to informally watch or fix those articles. This article is not one of those, yesterday was first ever to edit PC. This incidence gave me experience to handle disputes on contentious articles, in that sense I am thankful to all of you who responded. As pointed by you and other editor, smaller edits might be a way to go about it, ease oneself into the group basically. I have taken the suggestion, inserted "citation needed" tag to unsourced statement in the lede, next I will make uncontentious edit to add the sourced definition of PI to lede because PI has been redirected to this article. And will progressively will go on from there. Thanks for replies.

Please help me further, please watch the edits I make, I will try to make small edits, please directly revise/rephrase within the article. Otherwise, too tiring and draining for both of us. I love to give you my trust that you will do a good job with enhancing my smaller edits, please lend me your helping hand, support, encouragement, empowerment, friendship, and love. Perhaps together we can change the dynamics of that takpage into more loving and fun. Hugs. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Tagalog[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of loanwords in Tagalog, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. I have also seen that you are committing the same kind of unhelpful contributions in other pages, based on the comments left in your talk page. My suggestion is for you to develop an understanding of the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, avoiding original research and violations of neutral point of view guidelines. Thank you. Stricnina (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stricnina, no worries. Since I have not had time to further add sources etc, it is okay to revert at this stage. Perhaps, with short incremental changes we can enhance the article and readd with citations, perhaps rephrasing etc would be needed which we could do iterateively. I have already left my suggestions on article talkpage. Will revisit in future as and when I have time and mood, I certainly have interest in that topic. I will try to help you later to grow that and other related article. Unfortunately I am stuck with other things for now. I notices the unsourced Tamil section, easily addressable> Please take a look at these sources to start with.

• Tim Hoogervorst, 2005, is one of the most recent publication "[file:///G:/Downloads/Download/archipel-490.pdf Detecting pre-modern lexical influence from South India in Maritime Southeast Asia" ffile:///G:/Downloads/Download/archipel-490.pdf]
• Celine W M Arokiaswamy, 2000, Tamil influences in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, Hoogervorst mentions Arokiaswamy too.

Will do more research later when I could spare time. I saw you on those articles, I will help out with those too, let me get over my current to do list. Thanks for your contribution to wikipedia, keep it up. Salamat talaga. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Prahlad balaji[edit]

◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Prahlad balaji[edit]

◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forum link and article review[edit]

Dear Kautilya3, Prahlad balaji, DTM,

Please add the following to your watchlist and when you have time and inclinaiton please try to address the WP:BIAS by adding WP:BALANCE to these articles.

List of bias:

1. Talk:Belt and Road Initiative#Bias
2. Talk:Islamophobia#Bias
3. Talk:Zakat#Bias

Hi What I really want to know is which are the appropriate wikipedia forums to get visibiility for such issues? is it done via certain portals talkpage or directly on notice boards? Please insert the link to those appropriate forums where I can list this issue. Meanwhile, please feel free to list it there yourself. But please still provide me the links of those forums for my future use. I have avoided becoming registered user, always walked away from contentious articles, But I have now decided to take on the systematic bias and contentious articles in gradual manner by initially highlighting the issue at a smaller scale, then watch what kind of reaction it attracts and learn how to effective handle the negative reaction, and finally take it to much larger wikipedia-wide forums.

Thanks you guys always being around on wikipedia and your passion for contribution. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is always the first place to raise the issue. But it needs more thorough analysis of the bias you see. Bias can always be corrected by adding new sourced material with other points of view. When it is too big a task and can't be done overnight, you can stick a banner template at the top. See the banner template at the top of Sino-Indian War and the associated talk page section. But the talk page section needs to have enough detail for the passers-by to understand the issues. Your current section doesn't. At the same time, it shouldn't be too long as to overwhelm them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may want to monitor the page, and continue adding sources to unsourced statements (some of them are marked with ^{[citation needed]}). I think Kautilya3 has said most of what I wanted to say. --Regards, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Prahlad balaji DTM,

Thanks for your suggestions. 1. Apart from the bias in a standlone article, what are the appropriate platforms for raising the "multiple article systematic" bias or other issues? 2. What are the ways, as an IP, to get image files uploaded to be used in the article? Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other way to flag up multiple articles. But once you create a decent talk page, you can refer to it in multiple pages. For example, the same banner template I made for Sino-Indian War is also used in Sino-Indian border dispute, McMahon Line etc. etc. I believe the same people wrote all those pages, using the same substandard sources.

I don't know about restrictions on uploading images. You may have to go to WP:Help desk. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 and 58.182.176.169, to request new files, you can check out WP:RP. Best, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 and Prahlad balaji, Actually I want to make 1 image files to consolidate various figures provided by Ayesha Siddiqa in Mapping the Establishment of Pakistan and and here and most importantly page 65 which shows composition of The Pakistani Establishment and than map those to core, supporters and periphery, etc based on the description she has provided in the article, similarly another image file listing all 14 policies of the Pakistani Establishment listed by Steven Cohen. Perhaps I am better off making these myself instead of leaving it to others and once done I could just email it to one of you or some other editor willing to upload. Once it is in wikimedia, it could be used in the wikipedia articles. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

58.182.176.169, looks good! Are you sure the images are free? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 and Prahlad balaji, Images will be based on the copyrighted books/journals. I will come up with an adopted of my own by combining 2 or 3 original images/figures/tables from 1 or many sources using different visuablisation symbols and format. I will cite the original sources within the image as footer in (e.g *1 (Siddiqa 2000), *2 (Cohen 2002)), and the "image description" section on wikiMEDIA could have detailed citations (not in the article where image is used, article may still use same sources on own reference section). My image will not look like the original work but will capture the same "conceptual framwork" (borrowing PhD LitReview terminology) in the form of diagram and table, etc. As a well referenced "adopted from multi sources" redone composite image, it will not have COPYVIO, OR, SYNTHESIS, etc issue. I have seen "adopted from xyz source" images at wikimedia. I can sandbox the images, upload somewhere on public website with FREE USE statement or email to you, you guys can review and suggest changes to mitigate the risk of copyvio, etc. What do you think, any potential issues and how to preempt/mitigate those? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1: I will create an image with table on page 65, will combine with similar table I have seen in 1 or 2 other sources which provide similar shorter table while discussing the related topics, plus a diagram or 2 at top showing related concepts. As a copyrighted work, this standalone table on page 65 makes little sense to most people, unless someone reads the whole article and acronum definitions in item 36 on page 71. I will add few more "referenced" columns to capture the context around it e.g.

- how the years correspond to govt in power (military dictatorship, puppet politician selected by military, etc);

- perhaps a column to show the ethnic or geo roots of dictaror/politician in power to ascertain the extent of Punjabi domiance of estalishment e.g. ethically Punjabi or nonpunjabi, and if ethnically nonpunjabi then is he geo-culturally from Punjab (Punjabi Pathan like Imran Khan or Punjabi Muhazir like Musharraf);

- 3 more colums to show: Inner Cirlce of Pakistani Establishment i.e. first 2 items in PRIMARY in the table, middle circle (remaining items in PRIMARY) and outer circle (SECONDARY in table), this is somewhat in line with Siddiqa's journal article inside the book and I can add other sources to the "column label" to differentiate the core with middle layer within PRIMARY.

- so on. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2: Much simpler example is taking 14 policies of Pakistani Estahblishment from Steven Cohen's book and list those in a table/image. I can create 3 version. 1st image wiith condensed short rephrasing. 2nd image with exact phrasing from the book. A 3rd set of 14 different images with each policy quoted from source. Use the 1st one in the article where Cohen's book has been used heavily as citation. Use the 2nd one in other articles where Cohen;s book has not been used heavily, and pipe first article to 2nd article too. Individual images from the 3rd set can be used slectively in the contextual articles e.g. article on :forced disappearances", "persecution of Ahamadiy/Shia/Baloch in Pakistan", "Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorim in India/Afghanistan/Bangladesh" etc. This will take care of objections from other editors that article relies heavily on single source, has UNDUE WEIGHT or COPYVIO issues, etc. Will it work? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Thank you' comment[edit]

Thanks you so much to taking time out to express your liking of my work of Wikipedia. You've brightened my day! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna Harpy, Thank you too dear hero Iron lady, keep inspiring, keep contributing. My respect, gratitude and hugs for you. Cheers! 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Badopal, Haryana has been accepted[edit]

Congratulations! Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Also sections[edit]

Hi, I'm willing to learn how this [1] relates to the article's topic. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Johad, you may be blocked from editing. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

TheSunIsAStar147147, I have not blanked out anything which I should not have. I just added couple of related "see also" entries. I missed out edit summary and there was some leftover "stray" text which I have removed/cleaned out before you left a message here. Take a look again. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. i initially thought you were removing the section. my mistake, i apologize. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSunIsAStar147147, No worries, I just left a msg on your talkpage. I will undo/delete that. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSunIsAStar147147[edit]

Hello - the discussion about TheSunIsAStar147147 at User talk:86.174.124.67 may be of interest. —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

See MOS:SECTION - you're turning things into subsections that should be top level sections. - MrOllie (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I do not believe any of these are violaiton of policy or convention, hence subjective choice. If an edit is made in goodfaith and violates nothing, then let it b.. I use the headings in a way which should do the following: 1. improve redability index, 2. improve quick glance through ToC reading, comprehension and navigability. e.g. non core reference type stuff should be groupded together as subheading under one heading to declutter the ToC and enhance visual impact. 3. Self descriptive headings for improve readbility index and quicker comprehension, 4. Optimise visual representation and screen real estate, etc. These are good practices to follow. I have been doing this (clustering related headings and layering into subheadings) for years on wikipedia as an IP and never had problme with this specifically. I have used this approach for 30 years in corporate world in business presentations to bluechip clients to win multi billion global deals. I have used it my Phd and MBA thesis too where feasible. If you still believe that for some specific article you want to redo headings etc differently, go ahead and do it but pls try to adhere to the good practices I outlined. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not meant to be references, by making one a subsection of the other you are implying that they are. This makes the article less readable, since the readers won't know which links are actually the ones used to write the article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I think you already grasped the concept. If you believe there is more apt heading for that "layered/culstered grouping" instead of "reference" please feel free to use a different heading with similar clustered-layering. Let me know if you could think of a more apt heading, so that I too can start using it in future. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, I think I'll just continue to de-group them whenever I see them like that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, send me the link to specific style of manual which specifically states this. Additionally, de-group only and only if a policy says this specific style of manual has priority/precedence over all other styles (one used by me), cite the specific policy and specific passage in the policy to support your reasoning. Otherwise, de grouping for no violation, no valid justification and without negating/refuting my earlier justification above, is violation of my WP:goodfaith edits based on good practice and good justification as provided above. Repeated pattern of violation of good faith (multiple "subjective" de-grouping) is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Spend your wikipedia time on high ROI initiatives. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could just as easily say you're disruptively grouping them without consensus, so please don't make threats. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, you can say anything you like, you have not provided justification like I did, nor you have substaintiated your statements by providing "specific passages" in (if any) supporting policies/MoS. All you have done is just harp, make statements, provide vague reference to generic MOS which does not support your statement/logic. So far I did not threaten, I only provided justification and guided you with patience to the rules to substaintiate my replies. Stop playing victim card, that was last straw, please enough. Do not waste others time, this itself is disruptive. Counter and refute my answers with substaintiated policies. If not, just comply. Admin notice boards do not take lightly this type of argumentative nature for sake of harping/arguing. Since you have provide no justifiction and substaintiation as requested by me, I am done with this discussion. Since you ahve no substaintiated justification/counter, please do not disrupt my edits. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:FOOTERS: "When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==" - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I have been away, Im back. I saw, what you cited does not negate what I said. In fact it supports my argument. I have put all the footer type info under one level2 heading and to declutter I have grouped other footer type info as level3 subheadings, this is clearly supported by the guidelines you have cited above, read carefully here here. top arguing for sake of arguing. After having justified enough as above, I am running out of patience with your Wikilawyering. If I find you undoing my groupings I surely will haul you to ADMIN noticeboard to have you sanctioned/punished. I'm done. Bye. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is clear in context, they are all separate level 2 headings. Take it to the noticeboards if you must. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, You are wrong, stop misreading. Context makes it clear that if subsecitons are used then do not use ";" for subheadings, instead use level 3. Anyway, I have reasoned enough with you being stubbornly argumentative. Instead of wasting time in repetitively put up with your convoluted misreading of guidelines, I would reason with ADMIN NOTICEBOARD if I catch you undoing/disturbing my grouping of headings in footer based on your unacceptable argument above. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is clear, all appendices get level 2 headings, and it lists which sections are considered appendicies. I am not concerned about your ADMIN NOTICEBOARD threats. Let me save you some time - you should go ahead and start that thread now, because if and when I see more of those sections grouped incorrectly, I am absolutely going to ungroup them. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, Guideline you cited no where says that "all appendices get level 2 headings", stop making up your own convoluted guidelines. Let me ask you, point me if have you already undone some of my goodfaith work? I will deal with you from there because I had enough of your wasting time. You kepe moving goal post. You initially started with as if it was your personal preference, when pushed you kept coming up with new filmsy excuses, which shows you are not here to resolve but to argue. You took my patience and kindness as weakness, no more will be given and I will be ruthless from now on. Stop taking me for granted under impression that I am an IP. I have been an IP for years in peaceful way and never had this issue. In the past others who tried nonsense with me, have been permanently blocked by ADMINs. I have already given you way too long rope, but no more. Time wasters like you ruin the wikipedia experience for others, slow down the productivity, discourage others from contributing to wikipedia, you need to be dealt with thoroughly. This is the last warning. Fall in line or be punished. Show me work you have undone, stop stalking and comply by guidelines as I have explained. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

I have opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings_for_standard_appendicies for additional input. - MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I cant find exactly which talk you opened there. Secondly, seems you are unable to show me the passage to support your wikilawyering, what are you attempting next "try to change existing policies to support your old argument" or what? Enough is enough, please stop all this nonsense. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

A month has passed, so it has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_220#Section_headings_for_standard_appendicies. The discussion was short but unanimous. Relevant passages have already been linked earlier - based on the feedback of other editors, your reading of them seems to be incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important message[edit]

—PaleoNeonate – 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I noticed that in this edit to Salami tactics, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fuzheado | Talk 19:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado, I removed my own edit which I found not appropriate during the review. I am the author of this section Salami_tactics#China's_salami_slice_strategy. I have spent whole day on it. When I arrived at this section earlier today it literally had 2 sentences. I have since expanded it to a full fledged sections with the deeper explanation of topic, its dimensions and numerous examples. I am just revised my own edits to further improve the article. Seems you arrived her mistakenly after some automated tool was tripped. I made many incremental edits to that sections and most of my edits have the appropriate edit summary and I have already asked the watcher of that article to review my changes. I.e. I do not see there is any issue to be addressed by me. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for tirelessly copyediting and helping out with articles! You're very good! ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I've never given an IP a barnstar before. But I am not just giving it because you are an IP of course, but because of your edits to articles I watch. Thank you! DTM (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, Ram Ram Bhai, Thanks for the star, encouragement, understanding and collaboration. Hugs. Keep rocking. Cheers. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Bhupinder Singh Hooda has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Tayi Arajakate, please explain how was my edit summary inappropriate? You made a claim without explaining exactly what was wrong and what remedial steps are needed. I noticed you that subsequent to my edits, you have summarised and condensed the edits, which is perfectly fine by me. Seems you meant to say you have summarised my edits but you erroneously left this message which says something else. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did mean to say what I said above. Your edit summary consists of the following line, "Political zealots take special note of this and dont attempt to remove or else it will attract penalty and sanctions from wikipedia." This verges on intimidation which is uncivil.

Your edit itself was well sourced which is commendable but you should keep in mind wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and not excessively detail accounts of allegations in biographies of living people especially not to point that the accounts themselves constitute more of the article than the rest of the article itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commendation Tayi Arajakate as well as for the condensing the large text to the summary, all good as it is still piped to main articles. Re that statement, I am very peaceful person and usually do not leave such edit summaries, actually there is a history behind that statement, someone had removed the large edit, I had to reinstate it, I wanted to make sure same thing is not done again. For now I consider the issue resolved/closed. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend, Happy Diwali to you!

I see that you are focused on inserting Advanced Landing Grounds on all the pages where they are located. But here is what you need to do.

1. You can add it to the transportation section if there is one.
2. You can also create a subsection called Border management, if you wish, where this can go and any further operations regarding the border, including border roads.

No further additions to the lead or 'See also' sections should be made unless these are highlighted for that purpose in reliable sources. Daulat Beg Oldi is an example place where the ALG is key to its notability. Ziro is an example where it is not. Whether it goes into the lead depends on that.

Please let me know if you disagree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Deepavali Kautilya3, yes both good suggestions, I agree with you adding those too. Having collaborated with you for years, I understand you and I generally trust you and your decisions. Its on my to do list. I will try to expand all of the 20 or so AGL articles in the future. Most of those are stubs. For the first iteration, I have inserted some text to specify that those are AGLs. For some of the articles I did create subsections, but not for all. For now leave the edits in the article, unless you create a section, as long as the text remains in those article I am fine with any approach. It is a loads of work of expand all of those stubs. Also, some AGLs are missing from the summary of AGL article, e.g. Kibithoo, and those missing are usually helipads and not airstrip. Hence in future iterations I wish to capture that info in the summary list. Once done, then I will work on expanding each individual article. We both can keep in mind your suggestions to enhance those in the future iteration. I too will contribute over the coming years when time and mood permits me as my to do list has grown longer. As you know already, I am not always on wiki and I usually edit wherever my mood takes me. For now, I have been creating and enhancing AGL, AGPL, Siachen, LAC, Ladakh related articles for the clickthru reading and for better creation of mental visualization/map/linkages for an average reader. You, DTM and few others know the topic well as you guys have spent lot of years. Linkages and mental visualizations are not easy to establish for an occasional reader. All these enhancements you have suggested, along with my to do list, will help create those linkages and visualization. And bhai, you please get off the wiki at least on Deepavali. Take care. Cheers! 58.182.176.169 (talk)

No way! Wikipedia is the light of the world! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha bhai, whenever I meet you in person, I will snatch your phone, change your wikipedia password to some garbled string, and will send you to lakshadweep for de-addiction vacation. Family will thank me. Meanwhile enjoy editing and keep lighting up wikipedia. Cheers! . 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair. You threaten to send me to Lakshadweep and then you go on editing on the Diwali day!

But I am also concerned that your interest is in borders and border infrastructure, but you are putting content into geography pages. So the focus is all wrong, and you fill up the pages with WP:COATRACK material. For example, you have created a new page on Shyok (village), but there is nothing there except its place in the broder infrastructure. The fact that it is a village, people live there, rivers flow there, supporting life and lvelihoods is nowhere discussed. And, to beat it, even the coordinates you registered for it were entirely wrong. This is not the way to write Wikipedia. You need to take this criticism seriously. I suggest you limit yourself to border infrastructure and avoid geography. If you need to look up places, please look them on OpenStreetMap. You don't need to create Wikipedia pages for them for that purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 hehehe in that case we makes two of us addicts.

About the geo articles, I have created many and not just on border but elsewhere too. Not nice to make blanket statement to ask people to stop editing/creating content on wikipedia.

As for the geo/village, such as Shyok, my article meets the criteria for creation. It is lot better than countless one liner stubs and geo stubs articles. If your intention is to say that there is scope for further enhancement then I accept that but I take it as collaborative iterative work with many other editors, you included, i.e. it is not my PhD thesis and you are not my examiner, or vice versa. I put the initial hard work to create geo article on an important topic, now we both can collaborate to further enhance it. To indirectly say or expect that I must do all the work (to take it to PhD Thesis or journal article) is big ask. I am not aiming for that for all articles I create. I create an article and I let it grow organically with iterative collaboration with others. I am willing to take the feedback "if time and inclination allows" I should try to add content to geo articles in more areas, which is an ideal thing to do but not always feasible for many reasons. I had joked about you being addicted to wikipedia, that was meant in good way to make you laugh, and I am thankful for your time and contribution. But seriously Kautilya,, do not run people off wikipedia. This is serious and very bad. Work with me as equal collaborator. I welcome your feedback as long as you are equally open and sincere to receive and incorporate the feedback. Every one has different reason and approach to contribute to wikipedia, diversity is encouraged. In some articles I put lots of time and effort i.e. more time and less articles created. Whereas in other articles I may create more articles what meet the "basic" wikipedia criteria but spend less time i.e. more articles created in less time. First is quality ad second is quality approach, I use both, both have pros and cons, both are needed to increase depth and diversity of content. For stub type or shallower articles, I still make sure they meet wikipedia basic criteria and I keep those on my mental checklist to enhance their quality in future iteration.

For example Shyok meets criteria, it does mention river, it is atypical village in Ladakh but it is most known for its geostrategic value, and I recognise that stub needs further expansion, I did a good job in creating it and you did a good job in refining it, it still needs more work, all that was good. I may or may not expand it immediately after creating it. I may take many years to gradually incrementally enhance it and count on others to collaborate too. Collaboration is the key. But the way you berated for creating the article and asked me to stop geo creating articles is unacceptable. Stop asking people this. Don't delegate, instead collaborate with me and you can nicely request things to do as long as you are also putting your effort in humble way. There is no packing order. I will continue to create geo and other type of articles in such ways that they meet wikipedia criteria for creation. Please continue to refine those further wherever you find deficiency.

The way you wrote, it comes across you really want it your way or highway, or else I must get lost from wikipedia specially from areas you watch. That sounds awful Kautilya. Wikipedia will be poorer if you keep running editors off, if I did not create these geo articles. Please stop creating artificially highly hurdles to block the creation of content found by other peer reviewers to be valid (all articles submitted by me for creation were reviewed and "approved" by several other 3rd party independent editors, they didnt have problem but you have problem with my content? why?), while I have seen you protecting large unsourced articles. You are neither fair, not consistent, or respectful towards others/me as the "equal" editors. Ask yourself how many editors you have onboarded vs succeeded in running them off? I am sure you do not want me off wiki? I like a lot of thing you do, but sometimes you are way too unreasonable. Please be humble, be equal, respect me as I do respect you. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 It would been better if you sounded 1. encouraging, 2. iteratively collaborative, and 3. egalitarian ("we both are equal" no boss/supervisor type of attitude) e.g. nicer if you instead said "thanks for creating article. Creation of geostrategically important articles is good. Good to put its geostrategic significance in the lede, but put try to details the details in a subsection. If you have time please try to add other details such as demography and culture too. Or else if you rushing to create many geostrategic important articles and shot on time, try to remember this so that you can make those additions in the future iterations. Meanwhile, I too will contribute and enhance where I can. Happy to collaborate with you on our shared interests. Happy editing. See you around. Thank you". See this sounds way better. I get your point, basically you want me to put demography and more meat in geo article. I cant argue against that. In some articles I have added demo, etc, just see Dhalan above, you too are welcome to kindly enhance it. Some times I leave it to my future efforts or leave it to kind collaborators like you. Be kind to yourself, be kind to others, be kind to me please Kautilya. I still love you Kautilya but I do not have to like everything you say. hehehe 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 just want to ask you. Did I hurt your feelings when I joked I will send you to Lakshadweep for de-addiction vacation? I meant that in good hearted way. I felt you were kind enough, perhaps you missed me on Diwali, perhaps you noticed some of my edits and you generally perhaps appreciated my efforts, so you came to wish me. That is how I took it. and Kautilya, I felt touched and loved by you. I was going to write of you miss me, just leave me a message no need to find ecuses hehehe. Perhaps they way I joked with you, I am worried I might have hurt you. And perhaps that is why you are may be feeling hurt, angry, etc at me? Is it? I am sorry for hurting you. I did not have any hidden meaning while joking with you. It had only one meaning, which was "I like you. I love your passion for wikipedia. I am aware of your value add to wikipedia." Instead of using those words, I simply pulled your leg and I felt you would perhaps feel the humor and love from me. I am sorry if it came wrong and if I hurt you. Forgive me. Hugs bhai. Much love to you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way I can "encourage" WP:COATRACK editing because COATRACK is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT, all of which you are missing by miles. It is ok to start off without knowing these things. But when numerous reverts have been made, and the issue has been explained to you, if you refuse to understand it and make changes to your editing style, that would be considered disruptive.

You have already received an ARBIPA sanctions alert. Adherece to Wikipedia policies is a requirement. And, NPOV is a key policy. So I urge you to pay attention. Repeatedly violating policies will be grounds for sanctions.

This has nothing to do with Diwali or joking. So please put that thought out of your mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I do not have any ARBIPA warning. I have read some policy/guideline on wikiedia that talks about taking due care regarding India Pak articles. Please help me understand what exactly you mean. Are you saying Shyok or Dhalan articles are pushing any POV, etc? This is bit of stretch. Why do you believe those articles should not be created? What exactly do you meant by "but when numerous reverts have been made, and the issue has been explained to you, if you refuse to understand it and make changes to your editing style, that would be considered disruptive?" have you been reverting my edits without informing or discussing with me? Have you reverted, where you might be technically correct but used "throw the baby with the bathwater" approach by not retaining the valid aspects and linkages? If you revert several of my changes, without informing me, without initiating a dialogue much earlier to build a mutually agreeable approach, without retaining good aspects of my edits, then in the end getting frustrated at me will frustrate us both. Please explain the specifics which have been reverted and I have been reminded, and I still ended up reinstating those. You are making broad statements without specifics. Give me specifics to work with and be fair too. Things work both ways. You have received many more warning than me, you have had more instances of edit warring on Indo Pak articles than I have. It is easy to build case against anyone if someone decides to do it. I would love to address any valid and fair concerns from everyone. But, please give me specifics to work with, give me examples instead of broad statements. And, be fair as in not cherry picking things only to criticise. Be fair enough to apply the same yardstick to yourself that you would apply to me. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Newslinger has given you an ARBIPA sanctions alert here. You seem to have removed it. (ARBIPA stands for ARBCOM decision on India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.) The discretionary sanctions mean that you are held accountable for following all the applicable Wikipedia policies for these pages. If you do not know them or do not understand them, then you need to follow up when others point them out to you and ask them if you have questions or disagreements.
• In the section called #Section headings above, MrOllie has tried quite patiently to explain to you that you should not put external links under References. He has also opened a discusion at the MOS talk page so that you can hear from the experts. You have neither participated in that discussion, nor accepted that you understood the issue. But as of yesterday, you are still doing it.
• On 7th November, I have made a huge revert of the content you added to Spanggur Lake. I also posted a note on the talk page, explaining that the new content did not belong there. You have not made any kind of reply to it.

The next day, I repeated similar reverts at Spanggur Gap and other pages.

• On 10 November, I reverted huge amount of your content at Chicken's Neck (Pakistan) and referred to it as an instance of WP:COATRACK.
• Yesterday, I reverted the huge number of 'See also' entries you have been adding to the pages. I understand that this is only the tip of the iceberg. You have added such entries to a number of pages. For example at Pithoragarh airport, which is not even a border area and not even a military airport.
• Presumably you are getting notifications for all reverts. Even otherwise, the pages would be on your watch list, and you are able to see that the content is being reverted. You need to read the edit summaries, make an attempt to understand why the content was reverted and refrain from making similar edits in future. If you do not understand it or disagree, then you need to open a talk page discussion and have a dialogue. That is the protocol. It is called WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, thanks for the specifics. This makes it so much easier to action upon. Earlier I was so vague about your frustration, which ended up frustrating me too. Let me investigate these one by one. After my previous comment, and before your reply above, I read your OP and I looked at Shyok, Dhalan, and Ziro articles again to understand you better. I Made incremental edits to Ziro, and only then I realised you have reverted some edits of mine. I was able to see you point why those "see also" are valid in some places (e.g. DBO) but not all the articles (e.g. Ziro), and I agree with your suggestion. Only time I get notification is if someone leaves me a message on my talkpage. IPs get no notification if their edits are reverted, IPs on wikipedia can not subscribe to articles for notifications (hence no facebook account style watchlist and notifications), no notification if someone left a message on article talkpage. Hence, I was unaware of all those reverts. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Since you and me work on same articles, compared to other editors I place a higher importance on addressing our mutual concerns with you. Once we have common understanding, it makes life blissful for both of us. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, It will be easier for you to understand me better once you know my motives. As your know, there are many types of editors. No type is better or worse than others. They are just different, each have some value to add, but also have downside.

1. Passionate and most frequent wikipedian who live and breath wikipedia day in and day out. They know all the policies, have been through numerous edit wars and warning to each other. Consequently became battle hardened. They still retain their passion and love for wikipedia. They love to contribute. They also love to do lots of "non content" effort on wikipedia. Almost all of these are registered users. Most are either admin or nurse a secret/open ambition of becoming admin. They differ in the perspective that they also tend to edit in a way what they feel is easier for them to maintain the articles they watch. Some might become "status quoist"/jadded in their perspective after remaining emotionally wedded to the articles/topics for years. Time spent per visit is high, gap between visits is low.

2. Recreational editors: These have passion for contributing content as a destressing hobby, they usually avoid "non content" effort on wikipedia, avoid edit warring as it takes away "recreational and destressing" aspect and that is why they are regular contributors but not as frequent in terms of gap between their consecutive visits to wikipedia. They generally understand rules, policies, notice boards, etc but usually avoid the use of and do not want to be dragged there, nor they initiate it. to avoid confrontations, Most are perhaps registered users, a great many are IP for years. Time spent per visit is medium to high, gap between visits is mostly medium.

3. Occasional editors, they come only when there is a heated topic, end up making POV edits, revisit only when some latest viral news fires them up, they quickly add POV and gone. Time spent per visit is low, gap between visits is high.

I am a recreational editor. I only edit for de-stressing. I love the aspect that editing forces me to read lot more which I enjoy. That way I pleasantly discover new aspects and new scattered articles, some of which I interlink to create a mental map as a "recreational reader". From that perspective, each article should have a wrap of context around it. If I find article which comes across one piece of jigsaw but does not completely shows me the wrap/context around it as a recreational readers. I chose to remain IP because I value "recreational" aspect. Though being Ip has disadvantages, I dont get notification unless someone leaves me a message on my talkpage. it may be years before I discover my edits were reverted, by then even though my edits might have been reverted by one editors but 3rd party editors might have done much better edits along the same line of my edits, or I have lost interest, or I add it to my to do list if Im still interested. I avoid contentious articles because they do not allow "recreation / dstressing", but still keep those in my to do list. Im not here to deliberately vandalise, push POV or needle people.

See all my replies, edits, contribution within the context of passionate regular "recreational" editor who prioritises "peace" over "being right" and "edit wars" and confrontation. You will notice, I give a very long rope and immense patience to everyone who comes to my talkpage. I almost never leave a negative message on others talkpage. I have taken only 1 or 2 SOC puppets to notice boards who harassed my on talkpage and articles. Apart from that I have not warned or reported or needled anyone ever.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Re: user "Newslinger", he left a message which is take it to be "please familiarise yourself with this" kind of message. His message clearly says "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." This means there is no specific warning or penalties/sanctions against me. Im sure every editor who worked on Indo Pak article has received the same standard message.

Re: zakat, if you recall I have tagged you above seeking your advice as to how to deal with my edits to zakat type articles and religiously motivated editors. These 3 articles remain open issue (jizya article is "islamic apologist" pov, inclusion of misuse of zakat for terror funding in zakat article, misuse of islamic banking for terror funding in islamic banking article, all 3 interrelated watched by similar set of editors some of whom are religiously motivated to blindly defend the religion and any fair criticism is cause for "attack on faith" type of rallying cry). I will re do edits after finding more citations from more reliable sources, and this time instead of one large edit I will do series of smaller edits. But I recognise that religiously motivated editors might create several artificial hurdles. That is why, I am not in the mood to edit that article right way, because I avoid dealing with over enthusiastic religious people who are easily triggered. On the other hand, I also do not want to be an "intellectually coward" who permanently walked away and failed to highlight the misuse. Hence, that article and 3 or 4 similar religious/cultural articles remain on my to do list.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Re: MrOllie, he is a curious case. He randomly came to my talkpage. Wanted appendixes to be not layered. If you follow my discussion with him, I gave him long patience. Sometimes when I came back to wikipedia, and still saw his ongoing messages, I actually stopped usign wikipedia for a month or 2. Remember, "recreational editor". He seems to thrive on honing litigation skills. For me all that is waste of time, and killjoy on wikipedia.

A sensible editor will summarise the issue "upfront" and present all his arguments in one go. He did not do it. A WikiLawyer will keep inventing new excuses, and he kept doing it. After that he did RfC, which I didnt see for a month.

Even his RfC approach was rather "sneaky". When he left a message for me, he did not provide the exact link to post in RfC noticeboard, he did so only after he felt he has answers he can use in his favor.

Another sneaky thing he did not provide link to his discussion with me on my talkpage in his RfC post. These comes across as ploys which raise the red flags and reinforce the doubt that he keeps moving goal posts by trying new excuses and tricks.

RfC may respond differently if the RfC post id paraphrased different, if my discussion with him was not hidden from the RfC respondents, and if I had a chance to provide my counter to him in the Rfc.

Further, only couple of people responded to RfC, which he cites as if its massive consensus.

I find it all annoying and childish waste of time. I have two options, ignore him as he is not likely to come across me much, or go back to Rfc and give them complete transparency and then ask their opinion in the light of "full facts" with "both side of the argument".

His persistent behavior makes me suspect he might be one of those SOC puppet banned earlier and I must ask SPI to investigate his account against those known SOCs and I must also report his snaky style to admins too.

I avoid wasting time such "non content" stuff. I have not bothered to spend time reporting/investigating him. Remember, recreational editor. but I do not want him to be used an example against me. Hence, it remains an open issue for me to deal with him in a way to permanently resolve it as he is leaving me little or on choice despite me ignoring him a lot.

FYI, an hour or so ago, I became aware of him making edit to India related articles only today while editing Ziro. He usually does not edit India related articles. After I saw him on Ziro I realised perhaps he put my talkpage on watchlist to stalk me. As soon as I came back to wikipedia, he stalked my new edits to India related pages and reverted only those parts of edits related to "layering od appendix as subheadings". This reinforces my doubt that he might be one of those previously banned SOC on my talkpage above.

Overall, its low importance issue if appendixes should be layered, either way I don't care much.

For me, issue is not headings, rather his sneaky approach and "keep inventing new excuse" WikILawyering style, suspected stalking and suspected SOC pattern.

Just that you know, while editing Ziro today, I made edits in a way which address some of your concerns and I saw Ollie's revert and I did not reinstate as I consider that issue with him still open/unresolved.

To resolve it, I need to open RfC, file behavioral complaint against him with admins, file SOC investigation, all unpleasant things to do, all against my self rule of "do not warn or needle people specifically on their talkpage, avoid seeking block/punishment to others, avoid dragging them to disputes/complaints".

In my view when people persistently behave like him, it kills the joy of being on wikipedia. He is the cause I was turned off from wikipedia for weeks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Now the specific articles you and me have worked on. As you now know, IPs can not add articles to watchlist and they get no notifications for reverts, etc. I became aware of your reverts to Spanggur Lake, Spanggur Tso, Spanggur Gap, and Chicken's Neck (Pakistan) only after you pointed out in your post just now. Its been long hours for me. I am very tired and hungry now. Can we please discuss these tomorrow. Meanwhile I will try to read all these articles in detail and try to establish pattern of what you have been trying to achieve and find a way to marry it with what I have been trying to achieve. In short whatever I did I was doing this "I am a recreational editor" (re read that section above). I was trying to put a contextual wrap around each standalone article. All these articles are geo stubs. All are well known only for one reason, Indo-China border issue, hence that aspect is most prominent for these articles, not a tengential/coat rack. Another term for "border issue" is "geostrategic issue". Border town or even towns away from border but important to the "logistics" of border issue are "geostrategic". Hence, please do not see articles strictly in the light of "geo" only articles vs "border issue" articles. Articles on geostrategic "geo"s are marriage of both, i.e. geography and border issues both are very important, leaving one aspect (geology and border/geostrategic) out makes the geo article imbalanced/biased. All of Ladakh is also claimed by both China and Pakistan, hence every geo within Ladakh and other geo locations outside Ladakh which are logistic support for Ladakh geo are also geostrategic in nature, those article must cover border/geostrategic aspect too and not just geology alone.

Re Pithoragarh, perhaps I made a mistake, I will check sources properly again for any dual civil military use. Remember even some highways are used as ALG or similar operation even though some of those are far from border and not officially designated as military airstrip. Another example, for Siachen geostrategic/border region/issue/conflict the Chandigarh AFS is the main logistics and command airbase which supports/commands by other ALG and AFS on border through air lifting. Civil aviation airstrips/ports could be publically announced or unannounced ALG and logistics hub for the geostrategic articles.

Since I was not aware of your reverts, I thought all was hunky dory. Now, I understand the content of your OP better. Earlier, I thought you wanted me to create additional "transport" section in all ALG articles, or perhaps even wanted me to create new articles on 20+ ALG airstrips. Now, I take it to be that we need to mutually agree how we co-edit these articles in ways that caters for our mutual goals and concerns. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this one out — List of hydro-infrastructure on the Brahmaputra River. DTM (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, okay bhai, thank you for thinking of me and for letting me know. It was on my To Do list to further enhance it but I did not want to disturb you with unwanted/annoying/useless notifications, hence I did not reply earlier. Now, since I have made the enhancements to that article, I have something to show to you as a return gift through my contribution. Please take review [edits there]. I trust and like the way you usually edit, hence no need for debate shebate, feel free to directly update/overwrite my edits in case you did not like something. Happy New Year bhai, "aish kar". 58.182.176.169 (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Ababeel, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Ababeel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, please check the article deletion discussion above. I further wanted to reply and refute the guy there, but they already deleted the article. Article was created by someone else. I somehow got this notice, hence I ended up enhancing the article to address the concerns raised by the nominating editor. I applied edits to the main body of the article and expanded the main text significantly. They came back with some lame excuse, I wanted to refute after creating my nav templates. But they have already deleted the article. They are 4 registered accounts, all Pakistanis operating in a pack. 2 or 3 of those accounts are new or rarely used. Please review their talkpage and contribution history and you can see the pattern of bias. All 4 are WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK operating in badfaith (wiki guidelines require them to be objective and fair but they seem to be on nationalist POV agenda), introducing WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS by WP:GAMING the system. Do you know them? Have you come across them elsewhere? Especially where they have been playing the same tricks? What is the way to get the article revived as I still want to refute their argument. I shall report them for the MEAT/SOCK after Im done with creation of the nav templates first. What other action shall be taken against such behavior? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for a copy at WP:REFUND. It is a good idea to save a copy for yourself when an article is likely to get deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, How do I save? Just copy paste on my talkpage or in a document on laptop hard drive? BTW, what is your experience, comparatively in which situation the in-article side bar type navigation templates is better (I believe they get more eyeballs, but might not fit everywhere especially the puny articles) than the footer navigation template (can be bigger and perhaps likely to be used across comparatively more articles)? This is just my gut feeling, I have no data in reality to validate this conclusion. I wanted to create a rough sheet type of page attached to my talkpage/account here which I can use to type my ideas, try out edits before copy pasting into drafts or instead of working in building talkpage I can build see also on my rough worksheet page here before converting to nav template. I have seen some editors have it. I can't find a way to create it here for myself. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should save it to your own computer, as wikitext.

As for the navigation templates, footer template is the only one you should consider. Sidebars are strongly discouraged.

You really, really need to open an account. This IP address can go away at any time. It doesn't "belong" to you as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, bhai tere ko mere se kya dushmani hai you keep offering me "wiki account le le" hahaha. I am already a borderline wiki addict, aur tu mere ko Kautilya part2 bna ke chodega. Bai tere ko meri peaceful life pasand nhi hai kya? I will get sucked into wiki world, debates, etc which i always run way from. If I want stressful debates, then I would focus on my corporate job, at least which pays me $300k-$400K. I come here to de-stress from that world of clients, debates, corporate proposal and boardroom politics, etc. Every time someone wants to debate with me, I take a break from wiki. I will perhaps consider becoming registered editor once I retire permanently. Being IP, I get bullied, get taken for a ride "just another IPs". But I have more epace, every time IP changes, I take it as fresh start and wipe off all previous issues/edits/projects from my list and no legacy of past carried over. Bhai, being IP has lots of benefits which I am reluctant to give up, peace is the top reason. I am planning to write a separate little article on this mindset once templates are done. Meanwhile, I still have DTM and you to ask for things if I need something. DTM is a sweet lovable happy-go-lucky good boy and I really love his character/attitude, and you might be a pain in the butt, but at last I know you for many years and you may be a devil at times "tedha hai lekin apna hai" but a known devil is better than an angel hahaha. Today you being a good boy already. Well done. hehehe. Okay, ab kaam ki baat, I am starting a stint on creating the navigation templates. Any last minute suggestions? Know of any existing template I should expand? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 and DiplomatTesterMan, I made this edit] (I arrived there for my research work for creation of {{Geology and ecology of Himalaya}} template), and ended up linking and piping few terms. Do you know which is the Payi city or Payi gompa in Tibet near Namcha Barwa? If so, do me a favor and please link it directly in the article. Make a mental note too if you randomly come across the name of book in future then please add it there. Namcha Barwa is the highest peak and watershed in the easternmost extremity of Himalaya. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, the Pakistani-origin user "Mar4d" who conspired to get the Operation Ababeel article deleted unscrupulously is a previously banned WP:SOCK of user "Acejet", see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acejet. I have filed a fresh sock puppet investigation against this, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acejet. Since I noticed that you have come cross his tricks before (see here), I am also letting you know too. Feel free to add comments directly to the investigation if you have additional information or evidence which can aid the comprehensive investigation. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Korean Buddhism into Silk Road transmission of Buddhism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, thanks for the reminder. I usually provide attribution in the edit comment. Seems I inadvertently omitted in this case. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

Also on Culture of Korea. Please do it every time; it's required by our license.— Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Got it. I did several edits over very long hours till late in the mornight. Will take due care next time. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

Hi, could you please stop adding the huge "see also" section to dozens of articles? It doesn't appear to conform to the Manual of Style guidelines at MOS:SEEALSO. It's much too long, and most of the links don't seem to be related to the topic of the articles to which you're adding them. I don't see that there is a consensus anywhere that this "standard" list as you've called it should be mass-added into articles. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --IamNotU (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, thanks for the message. I had tried to standardise the "see also" section" across articles,

* As many of those articles did not have "see also" section

* Most of these had haphazard items.

Perhaps you could move all of those to a new article "List of population related meta concepts and meta lists". Since I am an IP, it takes me long time to create and article and await for months the approval after submitting the article text for creation. If you could please move the "see also" to a new article, I will then clean up the "see also" of all the articles by replacing the larger list with this linking to this one article. This will be a neat solution, while also achieving what I had been trying to do. Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've put some effort into making this list, and it's an interesting list, but unfortunately adding it to the "see also" sections of all these articles in this way clearly doesn't conform to the Manual of Style guidelines or usual practice on Wikipedia. I see that other editors have already reverted it in several cases. Please remove the rest yourself.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to help you create a new article. Perhaps you could create a draft. You might also consider a navigation template instead. And then find someone through Wikiprojects or some other noticeboard or article talk page, who would be willing to create it sooner than the usual long wait.

PS, regarding the message on my talk page, yes I did get the notification, it doesn't matter whether someone has a red user name, i.e., doesn't have user page. One small thing, you should never address someone on Wikipedia with "Hi dear", you can say "Hi IamNotU" (normal) or "Dear IamNotU" (more formal), but never "Hi dear" (very informal, usually only to be used with your marriage partner or your child, etc.). It's difficult to explain why that is... Also, there are many advantages to having an account, and judging by the number of edits you make, not having one doesn't seem to have helped much with your goal to "avoid addiction" :) --IamNotU (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, Thank you for the explanation. I do recognize there is a need for the neater concise way to encapsulate "see also". I had put in hours in compiling and recompiling the list, then reapply it to many article in mechanical and time consuming manner. It was not the most effective or neatest way. Message from you has prompted me to do it differently and find help. I will proceed with the creation of draft article. Once I am happy with my draft, I will ask someone else to move it. I will then replace my "see also" entries in all the articles, with piping to the new article. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the addition of the "see also" entries now, don't wait until you've managed to create a new article. You don't have the required consensus to add them. Otherwise I'll do it myself, but that's not the best solution. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're continuing to edit, and you've created Draft:List of population related meta concepts and meta lists. Again, it looks like an interesting collection of links. If you don't want a navigation template, then probably rather than a standalone list article, you're looking for an outline. I checked the list of outlines and there doesn't seem to be one about human population yet, so probably it would fit in.

However, as it may take some time to get the draft into shape and have it created, I'm asking you again (for the third time) to put that aside for the moment and go back and remove the "see also" lists you added today. It's not just a minor issue - they are very clearly not in conformance with the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia and need to be removed. If in good faith you make a mess by accident, you can easily be forgiven - if you make other people clean up your mess, not so much.

PS, another small language thing - you use the word "pipe" above, and often in your edit summaries, like this one: [2]. I believe you actually mean "link": adding double square brackets to create a link. "Piping" refers to the technique of using the "pipe" character: | in order to change how a link is displayed. I wouldn't even mention it, but may be confusing to other editors, as it was to me until I realized what you meant. --IamNotU (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the cleanup for you. Standardized lists of links belong on templates, not in the see-also section. By templates, I mean things like Template:Population or Template:Demographics of Europe. There's a guide to getting started at Wikipedia:Navigation template.— Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa. I finished the cleanup since they continued editing after my last message without responding. --IamNotU (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Diannaa. I was busy working on the "solution" as replacement for the "see also". When I proceeded to individual articles to remove the long "See also" and replace it with my new article "List of lists", I notices the long "see also" has been already removed. Perhaps you have some automated tool. Please review the draft. Big Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, I am done for tonight, already 6am, been long hours. If you wish to collaborate on the draft, please feel free to rename the draft article. You are also welcome to reorganise and/or rephrase it to "Outline" or any new name or style instead of the "List". I am not fussed. As a reader, all I wanted was to see collection of "all the interesting" related articles logically grouped at meta, macro, meso, micro level along with the core concepts of importance to enable richer contextual understanding/reading. I am looking at things from "recreational readers" perspective. I understand that as a watcher editor you are perhaps focused on the maintenance. I came to do a 2 minute minor edit to an obscure article on a small neighbourhood in Korea, ended up on a related demographics article. One article's "see also" led to many more. It turned into 18 hours long marathon. See, that I why I do not want to become a registered member and get sucked into pedantic wikipedia world. I want to remain a stress-free recreational editor without getting bogged down. As for the my edits, all is not lost, as I have been able to preserve all of the work into the new draft. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa and IamNotU, what do we do next? All those articles either do not have any "see also" or they have hodgepodge list of item. I wanted to replace all of those "see also" items with just one liner link to the Draft:List of population related meta concepts and meta lists. e.g. like the way I have done here List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America by population density#See also. I believe the draft I created provides more flexibility in terms of adding both text and bulleted lists as compared to a "Outline" article (strictly a barebone list) or "navigation template" (condensed list). In future, it could even be turned into a prose articles by any editor, in which all the existing items could be linked. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wish I could collaborate on the draft, but my time is mostly spoken for already... and I don't have a lot of experience in creating these kinds of navigational pages anyway. It does look to me like an outline is closest to what you're trying to do, and it doesn't have to be a "strictly a barebones list" - see Wikipedia:Outlines#Not merely an item list. I would try looking at some more of those outline pages at Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines for examples, and use "what links here" to see how they're used.

I don't disagree that "see also" sections can be a kind of hodgepodge. The general feeling is that this isn't a problem. So, while I think an outline of topics relevant to human population would be appreciated, you should not assume that existing links can all be deleted and replaced with only the curated links in your new page. It could be added alongside the links that other editors have added. Cleaning up "see also" sections is part of the ongoing work here, but I don't think there's any support for the idea of strictly controlled "see also" sections that are standardized across a wide range of articles.

I removed the redlink you added here: [3]. Redlinks are not to be used in "see also" sections, see MOS:NOTSEEALSO. You'll need to wait until the draft can be moved to article space, which may take some time. --IamNotU (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, A special honorable mention to you, especially on Christmas, for what you did and how you did it, and equally importantly what you did not do. You have been kind to me by helping proactively without being asked to be involved. You had minimal discussion (very restrained in words) but maximum output/productivity, i.e. very keen to collaborate, quietly went ahead, silently and quickly did what was needed instead of wasting time and productivity by discussing it to death. Perhaps you recognised that I am sincerely, readily and "immediately" working on addressing the issue with a future-proof sustainable solution which will be useful across a large number of articles. Importantly, you "truly" assumed goodfaith, and were not condescending or impatient, you did not bog me down in the pedantic unfriendly wikipedia bureaucracy, you actually did opposite. I wish all editors were like you, i.e. less talk, more action/collaboration, more wikipedia output for the editors' collective effort with such a friendly happy positive "feel good" vibe which creates a heartfelt feeling of gratitude and trust towards you. Truly a kind and calm gesture from you. I do not believe in religion, and am not a former Christian either, but I absolutely love the Christmas and its vibe. I take all this as the Christmas gift from you. Big thank you and lots of respect for you. Please stay as good to all as you have been to me here. Editors like you make wikipedia a better place to be. Due to all this, and out of my gratitude towards you, I do value your opinion. Hence, I will take your suggestion and will also try to condense some of the items in the draft article and try to create a footer navigation template. I am also comfortable with creating the navigation template. Footer navigation templates usually have the very simple syntax similar to the very basic computer programming. Initially, the items in both "Outline" and the "navigation template" might be similar. I will try to differentiate those. In the future, other editors might evolve these two in the different directions once I ave done the initial work. Having both article and navigation template will provide more options to the editors. I feel indebted to you. Creating the template will be my return Christmas gift to you to say a "Big Thank You". I do not want to distract you or pile up more work on you because you were kind and helpful, would you like to be invited to review it once I have created it? PS: Do you know of some editors who will be keen to contribute to the articles? 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, obviously I do not mean or intend to blindly replace all of the existing "see also" items in 2 or 3 dozen target articles where I intend to insert that as a bullet item. I had meant that when I applying my future edits to the target articles to insert the new "outline" article (and/or "navigation template" as well) I will clean up the "see also" list of the target articles. I will go through those articles' "see also" list on the "case by case" basis. I might remove some of the items from the "see also", some items may remain in both the "see also" as well as my "Outline" article linked in the "see also" as a bullet, and so on. I do not have any intention to "strictly" maintain only the "outline" article curated by me as the sole entry in the "see also". It makes sense to clean up the "see also" sections of target articles All this is just basic commonsense approach for every average human being, which must be assumed as a "given" thing to do. Since some editors take minimalist "see also" while others take "maximalist" approach, there might still be some future editors who might still revise my edits, so be it, thats just the way wikipedia works. On the case by case basis, I will make the goodfaith decision as to what to do to the see also of those articles. After that, I will leave it to future editors to do whatever they wish to do. I am not 'watching" those articles. IPs can not subscribe (add to watchlist) to any articles, and I prefer it that way. Once I am done with creation of the "Outline" article in the main namespace, and have applied it to the target articles, it will be the closure I seek. I am trying to get there fastest way possible with minimal distractions/discussions/notifications/annoyance with the help of editors who will be keen to collaborate and move to closure/resolution with minimal fuss. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, The term "dear" is just a moderate friendly term. We widely use it here in the multicultural, multiethnic, secular, moderate and fairly free state. Other people who live in the conservative nations from the orthodox background have not objected to the term "dear" in my last 50+ years. I still apologise to you if my usage of the term "dear" was objectionable to you. I will still try to be friendly to other wikipedia editors. But, I respect your wishes, and I will not use the word "dear" for you anymore. Wikipedia is not meant to be a dry, overly bureaucratic, highly mechanical and pedantic place to be. Let us keep it fuss-free, pleasant, friendly, cut the clutter and lengthy debates. Majority of the valid edits are created by the IPs who are not anonymous as they can be profiled based on the IP address. Registered users have a relatively higher degree of anonymity, more self-assumed power/status with less accountability. Many IPs and recreational editors like me, who are IPs by choice, they do not want to be distracted by the pedantic discussions which consume too much time, unnecessarily raise the talkpage heat and stress, but relatively add very little to the wikipedia article content. I have observed in several places that many registered editors try to use wikipedia as a place to hone the debating and communication skills at the expense of other editors' productivity/patience/time/stress-level-tolerance. Some of those registered editors might be open to the lengthy nitpicking discussions, as they seem to enjoy and thrive on it, but not me as it is a stressful distraction for me which encourages me/IPs to stay away from the stressful wikipedia community. Since IPs comprise the bulk of content creators and consumers, they are the bigger and more valuable stakeholders. Wikipedia policies and behavior must be geared towards them and not towards registered editors with unofficial "alpha" roles/hierarchy. Please presume that most IPs prefer silent, no-stress, no-fuss, no-notification, peaceful edits and quickest path to the resolution. Please adopt a behavior which caters to the needs, preferences, and styles of the "most valuable stakeholders" (IPs). User Diannaa did exactly this, she proactively came uninvited (perhaps she took pity on me as she might have realised that I am demonstrating the right behavior while you were raising the heat). Diannaa was kind to take proactive action without discussions, defused all the heat you were generating. You started out okay in a tentative manner in your first message, by got more pushy in your subsequent messages after I "readily" "immediately" "submitted" myself to addressing your concerns. You knew all the while that I am completely acting in good faith, committed to addressing your concerns, had even immediately stopped applying more similar edits, was sincerely working on a permanent solution, yet you kept badgering in almost like a stalker. Your earlier messages show that somehow you knew I have created a draft which adds value (which you too found "interesting"), you went ahead to check/stalk that I am progressively continuing to working on the draft, even that you took as if I am not doing something right. ANI noticeboard community does not like it. I have not been involved with the ANI, but out of the curiosity I have read couple of their discussions. I found that it is not my cup of tea. It is not the kind of thing I come to wikipedia for. I was amazed how people spend excessive time in ANI and similar things. Why would someone come to a platform (wikipedia), where they drag others or themselves be dragged to the stressful courts/litigation (ANI, etc). I almost always walk away from the most article talkpage discussions. This is what most IPs and even many registered editors do who prioritise peace, they simply walk away from wikipedia or reduce their time on wikipedia. ANI focuses more on the intent and behavior, not the content/editing issues. Please refrain from the stress-generating behavior. ANI can see what I was sincerely and promptly trying to do to address your issues, how you were reacting to it and continuously kept turning up the heat impatiently, and how Diane calmly took away all that heat by demonstrating "proactive, collaborative, friendly, and kind" behavior. Thanks for the tips related to the content. I had requested you to do a favor to spend few seconds to "copy-paste create" the article in the main namespace instead of the draft namespace. It which would have expedited the solution, minimised the discussion here. My draft may not be the best, but it is already way better than millions of already accepted/published long-surviving wikipedia articles many of which are presumably watched by you. By that "apply consistent criteria across the board" yardstick it deserved to be moved to the main namespace and be allowed to organically evolve from there. But you refused to do so, but had lot more time to spare in writing longer replies which took more time and effort, some of those are pedantic about banal things (the term "dear" is not so appropriate for the wikipedia community?). More objectivity please, more prioritization of productivity over pedantism please. Imagine if you gave me the same tips, minus the pedantism, and used a behavior similar to Dianna, it would have been a very pleasant and more productive experience. As of now, I will pick Diannaa to work with 10 out of 10 times. I am not too sure if given a choice I would want to pick you. We both can change it "together". Let us put all this behind in the goodfaith. Let us try to be like Diannaa (proactive, pacifist, pleasant, not pedantic pro-debaters or pushy). Let us enjoy our happy experiences on the wikipedia. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa and IamNotU, I have changed the name of the Draft:List of population related meta concepts and meta lists article within the article lede to the "Outline of demography". I presume both you have understood by now what I have been trying to achieve with this article. I had intended to make the article flexible enough to include the things that a curious random reader with the "love of learning" would be happy to come across. I prefer an optimum approach, i.e. quickest and feast solution with minimal effort. I am concerned about a future scenario where some other editor might object to the name or the type of things included in the article. I enjoy directly working/collaborating on the article to take it to published state (moved to main namespace) rather than discuss it to death elsewhere. To preempt the article name and type of content covered being challenged, could you please suggest an appropriate name which is future proof. I can then have the article namespace renamed accordingly during the move from draft to main namespace. Please suggest me things that reduce or eliminate the discussion but helps us move faster to the closure with the solution. Thanks.

Merry Christmas to both of you. I appreciate you might be busy with festivities, do not need to rush to reply. Please take your time. Wikipedia can wait, this is just another app with notifications. Enjoy your holidays and timeout with family and friends. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to High pressure metamorphic terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist, wikipedia guidelines require that if you leave such a message for other editors which undoes their effort, please specify the "specific" "actionable" "issue" which they can fix. Since you did not provide any explanation as to why you find my edits are not acceptable (I added a short "see also" section to the article which did not have this section), I presume either you were using some automated tool and inadvertently pressed some button and left this message on my talkpage by mistake, or you actually did not like the way I have annotated some of the entries in the "see also" section. If you meant the later, I have made edits again to cater/fix this, i.e. I have converted annotations into bullets points. All the items in the "see also" are related to the article. In case, you are still not happy with my edits, then please do an incremental edit to my edits directly in the article. That way we can minimize the discussion/debate, spend more time on content, and article will still ends up with what I intended to do (which is to have a "see also" section as there is none at present). Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" entries should be no more than 4-5. If you want more, consider creating a navigation template instead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Yes, I agree with your general concept, and I have 3 or 4 "to be create" Navigation Templates or Outline Articles on my To Do list. However, for this particular article above, I have added only 4 entries after the rework. In the previous edit, I think I had only 6 entries. The previous version and this version of my edits to this article are within those guidelines you mentioned. Anyway, I consider this specific issue as closed. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not closed yet. Notice the humongous See also list you have added to this puny article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, as I said earlier, this issue by OP related to 1 article is closed for me. As for your point, I understand you. This is next step in my To DO list to convert the "see also" to navigation template and apply to the other articles I have worked on. For Himalaya geography related articles, I worked across 4 to 6 related article including Indus-Yarlung_suture_zone, most of which were poor in linkages, others lacked visualisation/images, few are even puny articles which need further expansion. A lot to clean up and enhance. As a first step, working across those I added images with explanation so that readers can visualise the context and see their relation with each other. Reading across those helped me see the deficiencies, which led me to create a list with logical groupings. It was possible only by working across multiple articles simultaneously in few iterations. Now that I already have done the hard work of creating the conceptual framework in the form of the logically grouped list, the next step on my To Do list is to create the navigation template, and replace those see also. There are actually 3 to 4 Navigation templates on my To Do list based on 1. Himalayan geology based on today's work, 2&3. IndoPak/Indochin borders based on our earlier discussion, 4. World/Continental demographies and sustainable living/ecology/environment, 5. Perhaps couple more on other topics. These are next on my To Do. Do not worry, all this was already on my plan even before you arrived here. I already had plan to even ask you and DTM for the review/contribution, pls be a good boy tomorrow. For now, I need some sleep. See you tomorrow, and then we can fix the nav templates. Meanwhile, do you have any existing nav templates to suggest which I can use/enhance? or else I will create a new template. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

Have been resolved. Here is my summary from Wikipedia talk:Red link#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021:

The Manual of Style/Linking discussion ended with Not done for now and was furthermore Opposed by every participating editor. The Village Pump discussion was met with the response You can link to the article without the Draft: prefix. Once the draft is accepted, the red link will become blue. The Manual of Style/Layout discussion was also Not done for now citing lack of consensus.

Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, thank you for letting me know. I had stopped watching that discussion and had already left it to the community to decide. Since the larger unbiased community has already discussed it, I am satisfied with the answer/outcome. This is useful "link to the article without the Draft: prefix. Once the draft is accepted, the red link will become blue" especially in-line within the article. This covers the majority of the scenarios. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 58.182.176.169. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Indian Army Medical Corps".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]