User talk:Venkat TL

Index 1, 2

On 14 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Price of the Modi Years, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the book Price of the Modi Years, the popularity of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi does not depend on his performance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Price of the Modi Years. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Price of the Modi Years), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Third Badal ministry, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (t · c) buidhe 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you should have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk I have raised it on the talk page. appears to be unintentional edits. Hope he responds. Venkat TL (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I would love to help and assist, if you enough worthy to add on. Cheers Love2read&write (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you *find* enough Love2read&write (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for all your work on infoboxes in constituency articles, but please have a look at Category:Pages_using_duplicate_arguments_in_template_calls. You might find User:Frietjes/findargdups useful during future edits. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy Thanks for the links. I will fix them. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sidhu Moose Wala, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tek Fog, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to The Wire, the web application Tek Fog was used to "amplify right-wing propaganda" among Indians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tek Fog), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article KK (singer), which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating Punjab Assembly Committee on Public Accounts.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Maybe add some information on what this committee usually does

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating Punjab Assembly Committee on Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating Punjab Assembly Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been proposed for deletion by same user. Can you please share your views on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. Abbasulu (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbasulu I believe the AfD will be better served by your post on WT:IN and WT:ICTF Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Shashank4a1 (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashank4a1 thank you. I have never eaten this, but it looks tasty. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed an RFC on and implemented your Indian constituency naming convention, but I hope you understand that you should not implement a proposal until an RFC about whether to implement it or not is closed. Closing allows other people to more easily sense that a proposal is definitely to be implemented, and cut down on all the confusion that was at the root of that AN/I thread about your moves. Thank you for your time. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi! thank you for taking out the time to close this. Yes, I get your point. At the time when the moves were made by me, @MPGuy2824: and @IJohnKennady:, the proposal was open for more than a month with all 6 support and no oppose. The page rename discussions are generally open for 7 days. RfCs when they get clear consensus are closed earlier too. As I pointed on the ANI thread also, this brouhaha was more about grinding axe than the content disupte about page move. Both usernamekiran and Daxserver have past history with me, after which I am steering clear from them. In conclusion I agree that I should have asked a formal closure to avoid all this that happened. Learnt a lesson. Venkat TL (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating 11th Punjab Assembly.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

at minimum, add the list of elected members and the cabinet

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating History of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Suggestion: in the table, use party acronyms and add a column for small-sized parliamentary diagrams

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can add a small section for history of the constituencies. I assume some changes were there after the 2008 delimitation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I have created an Article with name- “Hardeep Singh Dimpy Dhillon”. I need help from You for same article. I thought you will help me. 59.91.202.189 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a defeated candidate with no other claim to fame. His article cannot be created till he wins election. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a another Indian Politician,”Dyal Singh Kolianwali”. I created an article of that Politician. But it was nominated for deletion. I think You should go through this. https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Dyal_Singh_Kolianwali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.202.189 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that it was deleted. Politicians who have not won election or did not do any major work are generally not fit for creating article on wikipedia. Please dont create their articles, it will be deleted. You can create articles for MLA and MPs if they dont have an article. Venkat TL (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much!

You can delete the conversation. 59.91.202.189 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.202.189 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the rules by clicking the link WP:POLITICIAN. You are welcome. Venkat TL (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL

Thank you for creating Rupesh Kumar Singh.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Akevsharma was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amit Palekar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Akevsharma (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Akevsharma (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert my last two edits in elections result columns in Dhanaula Assembly constituency page. I was making change in qila Raipur constituency but by mistake I did it on this page ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done@ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Plz add electrol Performance in Simranjit Singh Mann for the 1997 from qila Raipur constituency ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Venkat TL (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Punjab Assembly Committee on Public Accounts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rakesh Pandey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources call this terrorism yet it's in a terrorist category, isn't that a BLP,NOR, RS violation. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller indeed it is, but as you see there is a bunch of POV pushers who are seemingly acting as a team and have gotten me blocked for edit warring there claiming one against many WP:1AM. The admin would not agree that it was BLP vio and blocked me, argument followed, I was then page blocked for no reason, and eventually unblocked. As of now, I have unwatched that page and left it for admins to worry about. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else to ask? Or rsn or BLPN Doug Weller talk 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller When I had tried BLPN, there was no uninvolved user participation and the thread was archived without any concrete benefit to the article. RSN can be tried. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Venkat TL, I was wondering if there is a place where we can get election result data from. Like to see which MLA won from how many votes from what area. I am planning to add the data for all 243 constituencies in Bihar but can't find any data. You can see an example of what I am talking about here: Bisfi Assembly constituency. Also, I saw that you were working on renaming the pages of Vidhan sabha seats to have the state name in them as well. I was wondering if I could help with that because I can work on some other states if you would like. I would love to collaborate on future projects as well. Thanks User:Yellow alligator

User:Yellow alligator you can get this info from ECI database, follow the ext link at Madhepura_Assembly_constituency#External_links.

Template:Election_Results_table can be used to add the result table for every election. using the database above.

The rename of constituency is already done. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) explains how to choose the name, the state name is only added when there are 2 constituency with same name, This is mostly completed, but if you find something that needs fixing, please post them on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)

WP:POI is the wikiproject where you can see how to help, there are many things to do, that you can choose from.

Please fix your signature, seek help from WP:VPT because the discussion tools dont work with this sign. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Venkat TL, sorry for bothering you but I had a genuine question about what to do to fix the openstreetmap based map that I am trying to put into this one page. On the Ahmedabad-Dholera Expressway page you can see that I have added the source code but something is still wrong. I know that you have to get the wikidata tag and put that into the source code in order for it to work and I did do that. But it still seems to not be working and I was wondering if you could please help with that because you said that you have learned how to use these kinds of maps. Thanks User:Yellow alligator 17:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow alligator The Wikidata number is correct https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q85740166 but it seems the map is not included for this yet. So someone needs to draw the map, or if it exists at another location, that location wikidata number need to be added, rest whatever code you have added looks good to me. How to add the map? that even I dont know, never done, just came to know today when I searched for the answer to your question. I think Asking help from WP:VPT may be useful. Sorry I am not of much help to you here, I am new to the Openstreet map myself. I mostly use Googlemap to look for places. Venkat TL (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Thanks for your feedback for edits on Gauripur and Algapur Assembly constituency. Will remember in future. Gardenkur (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur, good. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur sorry you got pinged by mistake from the article today, Venkat TL (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this to your attention. Please remove such sources completely. Also, i found a few instances where you added the constituency infobox, but didn't remove the old settlement infobox. Can you take a look at those too? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of constituency articles that have both infoboxes. I don't know if all of them were done by you, but could you please take a look at them. If it is not easy to fix with AWB, then i can help you with a few articles daily. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, After automatically removing the site name, I had to manually remove the left over bits. I seem to have missed this one. It was a mistake. Thanks for cleaning this up for me. I deliberately left the settlement infobox due to the map it has. I don't see a problem in the map being displayed on the settlement infobox, until we figure out how to put the maps in the Assembly constituency infobox. There is no rule that demands only 1 infobox in a page and even if it was a rule, I would prefer ignoring it as I feel having a map in the page is helpful for the reader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khajauli_Assembly_constituency&oldid=1102287177

this is how it looks right now. Would it look better if the map would be in the first infobox yes. But I dont know how to merge this map, so till someone does it, the map can remain in separate infobox. I dont see the map as problematic here, so I left it. Venkat TL (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if [1] works for you. Its slightly clunky, i know. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 looks great. Now I know how to merge the maps. What is clunky here? cant see any problem. Venkat TL (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The clunky part is the template-type code in article space. I'll see if there is something better that i can find. If i don't reply back here in a couple of days, feel free to use this method. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, the best method is to do something like Behala Paschim Assembly constituency, but it needs the Openstreet maps to be marked. So there is a technical overhead to implement that. The pushpin map above, though not great, is better than nothing. Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RPSkokie was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gopal Italia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RPSkokie (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jhunjhunu Lok Sabha constituency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhim Singh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a Talk on the Murugan Page to address Kartikeya as Murugan from here on. For now it is not Move the entire page but only to address him primarily as Murugan. I hope you could provide some comments in support.

Muruganadimai (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muruganadimai yes, as you have seen on the talk page, I had made lot of efforts in discussing and trying to explain the mistake and the problem. It is not getting changed because enough editors are not commenting there asking for correction. And the existing editors think Murugan is not the popular name. Venkat TL (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: Hey Venkat, what's your opinion on splitting the page into Murugan and Kartikeya? I'm not sure of the possibility as I don't about the wikipedia policy much. If it's possible then we can put forward a case to split the page into two. There's lot more to write about Murugan than Kartikeya. The majority of this deity's history is with Tamils and we could put together a wonderful article under Murugan page. The problem keeping Murugan under Kartikeya is that we weren't allowed to expand information about Murugan and relevant Tamil worship. Every time you write something about Murugan in this page then these editors come and plug the word Kartikeya into the same article and thereby confusing the reader. For example, I wrote about a Murugan Temples in Australia that were built by Tamils and some editor changed the word Murugan to Kartikeya. When content gets mostly about tamil worship of Murugan they get so pissed off and plug in Kartikeya-Murugan. For This is nothing but a North Indian propaganda in my opinion.

Some editors get pissed off that they remove anything they see about Tamil contribution for Murugan, They removed the Tamil Om picture (which is alway identified with Murugan) and they removed details and pictures of many Murugan temple built by Tamils around the world.

Ideally the page should be named as Murugan else it should be split into two. For example how there are separate pages for Kataragama deviyo and Kartikeya even though it's same deity. If you see Parvati, Mahadevi, Durga, Meenakshi etc have got separate page here even though they are all the same deity. Muruganadimai (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muruganadimai, it should be obvious to you what is being done on that page and why, I dont need to explain it as you have seen it yourself. Yes, the page shuold be renamed to Murugan, but some editors are resisting this change strongly. The suggestion they gave was to start a new section in the article Kartikeya with the section header "Murugan" and put all content in that section about Murugan. Eventually WP:SPLIT it to create a new article on Murugan. Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the discussion has come to a closure, is there a chance to provide with documentary evidence prima facie to create a dedicated "murugan" wiki page, please advice on this. Muthu14 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muthu14 There is no formal closure of discussion, any one can make a new comment in the thread and the discusssion can continue from there. Basically at this point. A discussion is no longer necessary. Edit the article, identify Murugan related content and reference already in the article and move it into Murugan section. Expand the section and WP:SPINOFF into a new article title Murugan when it is large enough. Venkat TL (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Muthu14 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map on the article List of constituencies of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly showing the constituencies is wrong, other than numbering errors,it has a major shortcoming that it fails to show the constituencies in the urban parts of Jaipur and you can see a different version of this filled map in 2018 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election, you can see the Jaipur constituency enlarged too.

So if you know someone who makes such blank maps, ask him to replace the map with a corrected map with all urban constituencies visible and enlarged if necessary and reserved seats for SC ST are clearly portrayed. सत्यान्वेषी (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@सत्यान्वेषी the right place to ask for such help is WT:POI. I suggest you copy post the above on WP:POI talk page. Posting on the Talk:List of constituencies of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly will also be useful. Venkat TL (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Don't transclude the infobox of legislative assembly articles into legislative terms (like you did for Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and 15th Rajasthan Assembly). Different infobox are to be added to these pages. Template:Infobox legislature is used for legislative assembly pages (Rajasthan Legislative Assembly) and Template:Infobox legislative term should be used for 15th Rajasthan Assembly. See 14th Maharashtra Assembly for example. Dhruv edits (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
• Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
• Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
• Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
• If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
• Use common sense.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree thank you for taking out the time to review my request and trusting me with the right. Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you very much for your work. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Raju Srivastav, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plz edit on candidates AIMIM has also announced 3 candidates 1 jamalpur - sabir kabliwala aimim president gujrat 2 danilimda - kaushal ben parmar 3 surat - wasim qureshi Trushapre (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trushapre Please provide a reliable source to verify these names and make the request to add the names on Talk:2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election. Also you will need to make a case why these names need to be added. Typically many parties contest but only major party are listed before the election. If they win the election, then any party member can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidua (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

FYI I deleted the thread at ANI as an obvious duplicate of the ANEW thread. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where is the duplicate threadGidua (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich yes, thank you. He is teaching admins how to edit Wikipedia. I am smelling socks. Venkat TL (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, now blocked as a sock :-) Levivich (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered I still need to upload the photos of St Rufus. I wasn't able to get inside unfortunately - it was all locked up with nobody around - but I managed to get a few pics of the outside. Maybe I'll find time at half term. The bin is still there, and it has been joined by a bench with some lifelike-ish sculptures of dogs. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - sorry Venkat, you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Meant to post that at Levivich's talk. I'm getting confused... Girth Summit _(blether) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's almost your 1-year anniversary as a CheckUser, Girth... looks like you're losing your mind right on schedule ;-) Levivich (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit hahah, reading the first few words, I thought it was some convoluted sock joke. Had to google who St Rufus was. By the time I reached the end of the sentence I figured it was on the wrong page. Never mind and happy 1 year anniversary. Hope you had a nice vacation. Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - see St Rufus Church, which Levivich and I wrote a few years back. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is beautiful little church. Venkat TL (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mulayam Singh Yadav (MSY)

Hi brother. Hope you are you are doing fine. Thanks u so much for making that family tree 🌳. I need some small help.

1. Kindly add Abhishek Yadav and Aryan Yadav, below Mr Rajpal Singh Yadav (4th brother of MSY). They both are son of Rajpal and nephew of MSY.

2. Add name of Geeta devi just parallel/ next to Mr Ram Gopal Yadav. Geeta is real sister of RGY. Add name of Arvind Pratap, just below Geeta. Arvind is son of Geeta.

3. Add name of Phool Wati, wife of Bachchi Lal Yadav and mother of both Ram Gopal Yadav and Geeta devi.

4. Add name of MSY's grandfather Mr Mewa Ram. Mewa Ram is the father of Sughar Singh Yadav and Bachchi Lal Yadav.

5. Add name of Arjun Yadav, son of Akhilesh Yadav

6. Add name of Anurag Yadav, son of Abhay Ram and real brother of Dharmendra Yadav.

Thanks and regards Aakash Aakash Singh India (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aakash Singh India It is better to discuss this on Talk:Mulayam_Singh_Yadav#Family_tree Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mulayam Singh Yadav, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Look, you can't maneuver around the ethos of m:The Wrong Version. Unrelated to the humorous tone of that page, that's not just a project-wide, but a movement-wide principle. When you asked me to downgrade the full protections, I said: I mean, I guess, but that'll mean blocks for extended-confirmed users who continue the edit war, yourself included (diff, emphasis added). You responded with: Yes. please downgrade (diff). I think I explained to you clearly enough that ONUS / BRD, while recommended, are not binding like CR. Otherwise, the imbalance between longstanding and contending versions would become grossly skewed in all instances (of content disputes).

And yet you still went on to continue the edit war less than a day after I did that. I'll do you the courtesy of not going the WP:ARBIND way, even though it is also that, but that's a one time thing. I suggest trying to reach resolution to these disputes on the respective article talk pages. If you're still at an impasse after trying that, there are dispute resolution requests you can further avail yourself of, like WP:RFC, WP:RSN, etc. Since this is only a p-block, you can begin doing so immediately, and I wish you success in finding an amicable end to both. The p-block template:

You have been blocked from editing 2022 Himachal and Gujarat Legislative Assembly elections for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This response Special:Diff/1116644127/1116644441 was removed by User:El_c From User talk:El_C, so I am posting it here.

There is time zone difference and I was not allowed to give my side of the events and was promptly blocked. Since these are inaccurate allegations, this should not be allowed to go to archives without my response.

TLDR : TheWikiholic introduced several controversial edits on 2 articles without discussion, and edit warred to keep them without generating a consensus. The page was then restored to STATUSQUO version, after which TheWikiholic made a bad-faith report Special:Diff/1116469090 without admitting his controversial edits caused the disruption and falsely accused me of restoring my preferred version, while in fact I had only restored the STATUS QUO version before the controversial edits were Introduced.

Details and diffs After the page protection, I did not restore 'my version' as TheWikiholic above is accusing me of. I had restored the WP:STATUSQUO that is "Status Quo Ante version", prior to the sockpuppet disruption and controversial edits made by User:TheWikiholic. These edits by User:TheWikiholic had been disputed on the talk page and were added into the articles without consensus. They should not have been allowed in the first place and never restored without consensus at all. Yet he continued to restore and expected those controversial edits to remain on the page.

1. In the case of 2022 Himachal I restored the 5 October version by User:Dhruv edits, not mine.
2. Similarly, on 2022 Gujarat I have restored the Status Quo Ante version, prior to the recent controversial edits made without consensus. I restored Status Quo version of 11 October by User:Cosmo Sarjak not mine.

My intentions with the above 2 status quo ante reverts is made clear in the edit summary Special:Diff/1116386021/1116391357, Special:Diff/1116360179/1116392179 as well as the comments I made on the article talk page Special:Diff/1116394103 and Special:Diff/1116449338/1116451377.

Further, I had reached out to the users for cooperation Special:Diff/1116405200, Special:Diff/1116103537/1116405678, Special:Diff/1116201605/1116405546 and as they replied on the talk page, the agreed to work with the Status quo Ante version and then work for consensus using dispute resolution mechanism such as the ongoing RFC and discussion threads.

I am already continuously doing this before their advisory note, I am doing this through normal dispute resolution mechanisms like Talk page discussion threads that are ongoing and RFC. Diff list of my talk page edits Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.

Despite all these efforts by me on dispute resolution, I was deemed the defaulter of Wikipedia rules by El_C and promptly blocked without being given a chance to respond.

The page protection was requested to be downgraded from full protection, since other edits unrelated to the dispute was being prevented to be added. As an example, Himachal Pradesh election schedule was kept waiting on the talk page with the edit request for more than 24 hours, waiting for an admin on a fully protected page. The page protection was not reduced to restore someone's preferred version but to allow other edits and to not block the article improvement for a week, for an ongoing event article. In my opinion, the full protection should not have been applied in the first place for such an article, but that protection is admin discretion.

The inappropriate edits without consensus should not be allowed to remain on the article. The revert to Status Quo Ante should have been considered as a neutral edit, but the admin considered it edit warring to block me. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Venkat TL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had not violated WP:3RR. After the page protection, I did not restore 'my version', but the WP:STATUSQUO that is "Status Quo Ante version", prior to the sockpuppet disruption and controversial edits made by User:TheWikiholic that had been disputed on the talk page and were added into the articles without consensus. In the case of 2022 Himachal I restored the 5 October version by User:Dhruv edits, not mine. Similarly, on 2022 Gujarat I have restored the Status Quo Ante version, prior to the recent controversial edits made without consensus. I restored Status Quo version of 11 October by User:Cosmo Sarjak not mine. This is made clear in the edit summary Special:Diff/1116386021/1116391357, Special:Diff/1116360179/1116392179 as well as the comments I made on the article talk page Special:Diff/1116394103 and Special:Diff/1116449338/1116451377. I had reached out to the users for cooperation Special:Diff/1116405200, Special:Diff/1116103537/1116405678, Special:Diff/1116201605/1116405546 and as they replied on the talk page, the agreed to work with the Status quo Ante version and then work for consensus using dispute resolution mechanism such as the ongoing RFC and discussion threads. Since the page was restored to STATUSQUO version there has been no ongoing edit warring in the last 24 hours. This block does not achieve anything and was made after a bad-faith report Special:Diff/1116469090 by User:TheWikiholic who himself had introduced the controversial content without gaining consensus first, and then edit warred to keep his edits. There is time zone difference and I was not allowed to give my side of the story and was promptly blocked, Special:Diff/1116516225 even though I had not violated WP:3RR. The blocking admin in block notice said " I suggest trying to reach resolution to these disputes on the respective article talk pages... you can begin doing so immediately", and they totally ignored that I am already continuously doing this before their advisory note, I am doing this through normal dispute resolution mechanisms like Talk page discussion threads that are ongoing and RFC. Diff list of my talk page edits Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. Since this page block does not prevent anything hence I request that my partial block be lifted, I have already stated on talk page, that I wish to work with other users for consensus on these controversial edits, and I do not wish to edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not have to be specifically violating 3RR to be edit warring. You don't need to be able to edit the articles in order to discuss the issues on the talk page or use other dispute resolution channels. By the time you work through any issues, the block will expire. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot, I have already been doing all that and much more to the best of my abilities. Neither the blocking admin, nor declining admin have noted, what does Wikipedia acheieve by preventing me from updating the page. If the intention is to prevent edit war, I have explicitly noted in my unblock request. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to details in above note. Main points,

(1) 331dot agrees that there was no 3RR violation.

(2) I was already continuing with ongoing dispute resolution mechanisms on talk page.

(3) Blocks are not punitive, there is nothing that this block achieves

(4) Only I was blocked and for restoring the WP:STATUSQUO version prior to controversial edits. hence unfair

(5) unfair to only prevent me from updating the page

(6) I have agreed not to edit war and the admin with hawk eyes are already watching and would be welcome to block for any policy violation.

So I kindly request an unblock Venkat TL (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC) That's not what I said. I said that you were not blocked specifically for violating 3RR. You do not have to violate 3RR to be edit warring. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What updates do you intend to make, if there are content disputes with regards to this article? 331dot (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, ok, It is my understanding that editors are only blocked when there is a 3RR violation (which was not in my case, hence I pointed). I had reported Het666 for 6 instances of edit warring in 24 hours, yet he was not blocked for the same reason. I intend to make all kinds of edits, such as updating schedule, updating major events in this ongoing event article, candidates, etc . Specifically I do not intend to edit the controversial lines that we have a dispute over, and are being discussed on the talk page for consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:EW states, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." My advice would be that you should avoid directly editing the article while there are content disputes, at least without discussion, as they could be inflamed. But, any decision here will be up to someone else. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) 331dot agrees that there was no 3RR violation.

As they repeatedly note above, they declined because counting reverts is not needed to invoke edit warring enforcement. It's not just about quantity, there's also qualitative discretion.

(2) I was already continuing with ongoing dispute resolution mechanisms on talk page.

Your preferred version currently stands because you resumed the edit warring after warning.

(3) Blocks are not punitive, there is nothing that this block achieves

Edit warring blocks after warning are not punitive.

(4) Only I was blocked and for restoring the STATUSQUO version prior to controversial edits. hence unfair

It was fair. You were warned against edit warring. And further warned that 'STATUSQUO version' is not an exemption from it.

(5) unfair to only prevent me from updating the page

You're the only one who who re-started the edit war in both pages; the only one who asked for the protection to be downgraded to even be able to do that; and the only one who was warned expressly against it.

(6) I have agreed not to edit war and the admin with hawk eyes are already watching and would be welcome to block for any policy violation.

You agreed not to edit war before, so what's meaningfully different now? *** Taking all of the above in, I'm even more concerned now than I was before. Venkat TL, from my perspective: either you've not understood what I had written to you in my block message (and my talk page prior), or, you're being deliberately obtuse. Neither option is good.

Now, this may be a one-off, who knows (someone probably, but not I), however, if it isn't, then that's a problem. But if those are issues are mostly limited to the WP:ARBIND topic area, at least this could be more effectively remedied with a discretionary sanctions, up to a WP:TBAN from the entire ARBIND topic area.

Now, I'm not gonna do anything else unless something new that's actionable happens — outside the unblock appeals on this talk page, of course. I don't intend on undermining the unblock process, regardless of anything. But, as mentioned, Venkat TL, if I see you try to WP:GAME the system again in the future, there'll probably be an escalation in enforcement. So I urge you to heed that warning and do better moving forward, especially when it involves a topic area that is already volatile. El_C 09:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C

(1) Still there was no 3RR violation. No ongoing disruption in last 24 hours. No immediate need for the block citing Edit war.

(2) It is immaterial. The version restored to was not 'my version', the restored version as edited by another user was prior to my version. I have reverted to Status Quo Ante version following WP:STATUSQUO, Are you saying the version I reverted is NOT STATUSQUO ANTE? It is not my fault if an editor disrupts the page and then the status quo ante version is someone's allegedly preferred version. Please explicitly reply if it is STATUS quo ante or not.

(3) This is clearly a punitive and unfair one sided block and the block was placed after I restored the STATUS QUO ante version. If you would have been a fair admin, you would not have spared the User:TheWikiholic who originally introduced the disputed content and edit warred over it and User:Het666 who made 6 edit war reverts. But you found me responsible eventhough I was making all efforts to reach talk page consensus.

(4), (5) I would not have called it unfair if all the participants involved in edit war were given same treatment. Very unfortunate that you are only singling me out.

(6) I do not consider that my edit in which I restored the status Quo Ante version written by another editor was an edit warring. You disagree. We agree to disagree.

In my last comment I have noted "Specifically I do not intend to edit the controversial lines that we have a dispute over, and are being discussed on the talk page for consensus." Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: El C The article was fine and editors had cosensus until User:Wikiholic came along and pushed in controversial content without consensus. Edit warred over it. After Status Quo ante version was restored, he went to your page and you promptly blocked me (and "only me"), without waiting for my response. After I explained the entire situation, the circumstances of the unfair block and made an unblock request you are now alleging I am gaming. I am sorry to repeat this but from all the admins I have come across so far, you are the most unfair admin I have seen. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, your replies continue to be unresponsive and repetitive to an increasingly concerning degree, which I think, at the very least, calls to question your competence in this matter. I have nothing further to add at time, except perhaps that continuing to do so ultimately works against your own interests. El_C 12:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I have tried to respond to each point of your comment. Why unresponsive? what did I miss? If you or 331dot believe that my unblock request has anything lacking please do let me know so that I can include it for the next admin. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I feel like your arguments continue to be unresponsive to my salient points, to the extent that I've since given up trying to explain these to you in various different ways. Maybe re-read (closely) all our exchanges again and try to respond pointedly (content-wise rather than format-wise). El_C 15:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, if you have given up on this discussion, I cannot force you to respond. I have read both the accusation post that led you to block me and your blocking statement and have given a combined response above Special:Diff/1116632665/1116645833. I believe I have now answered all the points you raised, including the mis categorization of my downgrade requests as gaming the system. If you still believe I am unresponsive to anything particular, I would request you to explicitly point it to me so that I can respond and make it clear. Venkat TL (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you can't compel me to, and I'd prefer you not contact me further wrt to this unblock discussion. I no longer consider it a good use of my time, so I leave the matter with the unblock reviewers. El_C 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Venkat TL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For more details please refer to the first unblock request above. Main points,

(1) There was no 3RR violation. Blocking admin has blocked me for restoring the "Status Quo Ante" version even though the restored version was prior to my edited version.

(2) I was already continuing with ongoing dispute resolution mechanisms on talk page.

(3) Blocks are not punitive, there is nothing that this block achieves

(4) Only I was blocked and for restoring the WP:STATUSQUO version prior to controversial edits, even though the disputed content was introduced by other user. hence unfair

(5) unfair to only prevent me from updating the page

(6) I have agreed not to edit disputed lines or edit war and the admin with hawk eyes are already watching and would be welcome to block for any policy violation.

So I kindly request an unblock. Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked for a 3RR violation. You're blocked for edit warring. Also, "I wasn't edit warring because I was right" doesn't work in unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NinjaRobotPirate, I have never said in my unblock request that "I wasn't edit warring", I dont know why you would twist and misrepresent my unblock request like this. Please check my point 6, I have explicitly said, I have agreed not to edit war, I have agreed not edit disputed lines in those pages. Please let me know what is lacking in my unblock request, it is very disappointing to see this declined. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, Will it satisfy you to agree with my unblock request if I modify my (1) to say "I was edit warring but there was no 3RR violation...." because that is exactly what I meant. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in interacting with people who insult me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I have not insulted you anywhere. Do you think it is an acceptable behavior to put words into my mouth, opposite to what I have said? And if you consider my objection to your misrepresentation of my request, "an insult" then I have been subjected to far worse above. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for NinjaRobotPirate, but if I were to guess, it's since you not only said they misrepresent [your] unblock request, but even twist[s] to do so. Which implies bad faith. El_C 16:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate should have made it clear but despite asking he is evasive. Twist (one's) words is defined at thefreedictionary as "To alter, distort, or misrepresent the intended meaning of something one has said or written.", that is exactly how I used this word. If there are other non-standard or cultural meanings, then I don't know. Anyway, I am more interested to know if this is a common thing among Wikipedia admins, that they routinely mis-represent a user's request in this way? On the more important topic, since you are here, El_C did you notice, the guy who first started the dispute, edit warred over it and went block shopping to you and you gave him what he wanted, suddenly has no more dispute, over which he was seeking "Full protection" of the page. The page after being reverted to Status quo ante and no further discussion is happening about the disputed content he had introduced. He has no constructive edit on that page while most of the 2 pages were written by me in coordination with other users. You should take pride in the recent admin decisions you have taken on those two pages. Venkat TL (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block shopping to me? You went protection downgrade to me, was warned against edit warring in that event, still edit warred in that event. How many times do you need to be told the same thing? Again, this WP:IDHT on your part is concerning, and it is serving you poorly here, as does going on about various other loosely-connected details (including quoting the dictionary for some reason). This is not a good look.

The point is that you've already WP:GAMED the system. You promising not to edit war does not inspire confidence when again and again you misunderstand edit warring vis-à-vis 3RR. The chance that you'll try to game it again, and start edit warring again, maybe with partial reverts or whatever — I don't think you'll get a reviewer to trust you with that, if you're gonna go for unblock no. 3 (did you even read WP:GAB btw?). But badgering the reviewers and doubting their good faith. That, too, is not a good look. El_C 15:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C I quoted from the dictionary to make sure that there is no ambiguity (if there was any to begin with) with my intended use of that word. There was no other purpose to that quote.

I know you have admin discretion and in the same way I have my opinion over your admin actions. I have said before and I still believe your full protection of those two pages was not correct, when ECP was requested by me and should have been sufficient, but instead you first went with Semi protection, which was of no use, as even the blocked sock-master was able to evade it to continue his disruption on the page. Then you made another wrong admin decision and fully protected a high traffic page that was being updated on a daily basis. I dont need to repeat our disagreement on this partial block. Your admin decisions are not "System", you can go ahead and call them anything you want. I have explained in detail above with diffs why I asked for downgrades and why I moved to STATUS QUO ANTE. You continue to attribute bad faith to my actions (gaming) and there is nothing more I can do about it. I am untrusted for 7 days and on 8th day I will become trusted again to edit those pages. This was such a trivial and garden variety of page disruption and yet such badly handled.

I am not badgering anyone. If someone will attribute bad faith (gaming) to my actions, then I will register my disagreement and explain my actions. If someone misrepresents my statement, I will register my objection to the misrepresentation.

I have already said all the things there was to say from my side in my Unblock Request No. 2 and somehow it was not enough for the admin to consider the unblock. I dont know what is more to be said in the Unblock Request 3 and those who found Unblock Request No. 1 & 2 lacking are not pointing what is lacking. So there will be no Unblock request No #3. Venkat TL (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, me calling what you did Wikipedia:Gaming the system doesn't mean that you intentionally set out to game the system from the outset. I don't have any special insights into your intent, and that may well had happened organically without you being fully aware of the overarching mechanics of it all. Sounds plausible. Still, that's is how it played out, and edit warring after warning is what it is. Moreover, after that, you behaved suboptimally to the unblock reviewers during the appeals rounds, by bludgeoning the discussions and hinting on their possible bad faith. So, I'm hoping (still) that you're able to learn from all this. I still suspect you haven't read WP:GAB closely (which I still recommend you do, if not now, at some point in the future), but feel free to correct me on that account. El_C 22:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL Hello! my dear and most famous BROTHER! Can you do the holiest of holiest things? - publish one article in a common space, I do not have the authority to do this, but you would just help, I will be grateful!

Article - Sad Person Million dollars12 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Million dollars12, Please post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you take a look at 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election when you get a chance. A lot of trimming was done during your ABAN. I reverted some of it back. Also a user keeps on adding poorly sourced content in Unemployment section and removes properly sourced info. I can't revert it back anymore because of 3RR. Dhruv edits (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is ABAN? @Dhruv edits please contact the admin User:El C who has blocked me calling me a threat to that page and made sure no one else unblocks. Due to the block I cannot edit that page. This admin apparently knows better than us. I am sure they can handle this situation better than me. They blocked me for making a status quo ante revert and call it gaming. They are likely to block me again if I do another Status Quo Ante revert. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are no longer blocked from that page. Please don't ping me with passive-aggressive innuendo. I'm not interested. El_C 09:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C I did not ping you last time also, yet you blocked without hearing me. If I restore SQA, and then Wikiholic or someone else posts on your talk page, will you still block me for reverting to SQA and call it gaming? This is not an innuendo. This is a genuine concern due to your recent admin actions on that page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. If you want to link to my user name without a WP:PING, use {{noping|El_C}}. El_C 09:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I mean to say, that I did not ping you last time, before getting blocked after a third party's complaint. Please address my concern, because I see it happening with a very high probability and this time for a month. Venkat TL (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, do not be evasive on my question and please respond. I am going to make a Status Quo Ante revert on the page, will that lead to my blocking again? (You had blocked last time for making 1 SQA revert that was not 3RR violation).--Venkat TL (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued and unrelenting WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT, I'm actually inclined to topic ban you from the entire WP:ARBIND topic area, which, yes, will include those two pages. While I don't think you're operating with bad intend, I also don't think you possess the required competence to continue editing this contentious topic area at this time. So perhaps it's best you prove that you're able to edit less contentious topics unproblematically first. El_C 07:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now briefly looked through the admin noticeboard archives and found out that your disruption in this topic area is not an isolated thing: Feb report, another Feb report, June report, and several more listed. So, sorry, but I'm gonna go ahead with immediate effect. In light of these, I simply do not have confidence that disruption will not resume, if not now, in the near future. It is simply not feasible to have these kinds of problems reoccur every few months. El_C 07:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

An indefinite topic ban from the subject of politics in the WP:ARBIPA topic area, broadly construed (that includes related individuals, political history, etc.)

You have been sanctioned, in part, per your continued WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT conduct following your partial block (permalink). This is in addition to multiple noticeboard complaints: at ANI in Feb and in Feb again, and then in May-June. And at AE also in Feb. This leads me to believe that, at this time, you may simply lack the required competence to edit this contentious topic area collaboratively. It just isn't feasible for you to fail to heed multiple warnings; it just isn't feasible for these problems to continue reoccurring every few months. I recommend you appeal in no less than 6 months, during which time you demonstrate unproblematic editing elsewhere.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 08:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the cases you have linked, You have said that you only did a brief reading of these cases. I request you to kindly do a detailed reading, before taking such a severe decision. All 3 cases in Feb were users engaged in content dispute trying to use Admin boards as a way out of dispute and all of them were inconsequential for that reason. The May incident was again a frivolous case which ignored the fact that my actions were made only after securing a clear consensus after a discussion. If you have any question on past incidents, I can answer. All of these cases were closed without actions. It is totally unfair to use them as a reason to put this ban. El_C this is a massive over-reaction to my query. This is the only topic area I edit so it is basically an indefinite block for me. All my contributions have been constructive and to improve the page. Please reconsider your decision. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, it isn't about your latest query, per se., nor is it about any one thing in particular. It's a culmination of misconduct in the topic area to which you received multiple warnings and cautions, yet the problems persist. That is, even if those noticeboard complaints that I listed (and there are additional ones I didn't) were closed, as you say, without actions, there were still those aforementioned warnings and cautions — so, this then is the action. And just because it might be the only topic area you currently edit, doesn't preclude you from editing other ones.

As mentioned, a perennial problem is that you bludgeon unrelentingly, often with passive-aggressive repetition to excess, including assumptions of bad faith (for example, above to NinjaRobotPirate). Again, I'm not gonna list everything or get into the granular detail of each items; nor will I reiterate my TBAN message in different ways. I've already done that more than enough with the p-block above. Now, while I strongly recommend you wait 6 months before appealing this sanction, you could technically do so immediately. But my sense is that it'll go about as well as your p-block appeals above (speaking from the experience of someone who has imposed TBANS probably in the triple digits). El_C 09:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Aam Aadmi Party politicians from Telangana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Surjeet Thakur, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An input request about 'Indian Non-vegetarian food culture' @ WP:DUE Bookku (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aam Aadmi Party, Gujarat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aam Aadmi Party, Gujarat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

TheWikiholic (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gurmail Singh (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmail Singh (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

TheWikiholic (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aam Aadmi Party, Goa, 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/Aam Aadmi Party, Goa 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) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Surjeet Thakur".

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! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pravin Ram, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Pravin Ram".

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! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Punjab Assembly Committee on Public Accounts, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Opinion polls for 2022 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Opinion polls for 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLABIOBOT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 09:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Former members of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INCONSTBOT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INCONSTTOP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLABIO has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INCONSTTOP2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INCONSTBOT2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]