User talk:Mixmon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

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
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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) 11:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries

As far as I can tell, you are making good edits to the article on Sanjeev Sanyal‎. But you often forget to leave an edit summary. It would help other editors if you used the edit summary field, either: (1) to explain your reasoning for an edit, or (2) to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please try to provide an edit summary for every edit you make (I know we all forget sometimes). With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, I will keep that in mind.

I have something to ask- I have created a new wiki draft article. Could you please give some suggestion on how to improve it so it doesn't get rejected? Mixmon (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well to start with you need to delete the "Controversies" heading. See WP:CSECTION.

All the newspaper citations need going through. If there is a Wikipedia article on the newspaper in question, this should be wikilinked inside the citation. Newspaper articles have a publication date - that needs to go in the citation. Newspaper articles often list their authors; the best way to list these is to use the |first1 |last1 |first2 |last2 fields (if there 6 authors, you will have |first6 |last6 fields); sometimes articles list editors so use |editor1-first |editor1-last.

If someone was arrested, the article should say when. Also, when did he get bail, and when did the Odisha Government decide not to accord sanctions of his prosecution and withdraw all cases against him.

He has written for national and international dailies and has several academic publications and books - the article should say which national and international dailies he was written for, and have a section listing his books, and significant academic publications.

Do you know his date of birth? If yes, how do you know it - i.e. we need a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The article says that he created a storm in Odisha Assembly and outside. Unless you mean that he has control of the weather, you need to rephrase that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand why you had the draft article deleted. Writing a new Wikipedia article is a lot of work. You have to build it up, and look for mistakes and try to fix them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I just shifted that article to the main space ( I still have a lot of work to do on that one). I was busy creating this article , it's 70% complete. Do you know how it's indexed on search engines? Mixmon (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a utility the counts the number of page views per day. The interface has various settings on the left hand side.^[1] It shows that on 15 Feb 2023 the article on Abhijit Iyer Mitra had:

• 89 page views by users (73 desktop, 2 mobile app, 14 mobile web)
• 81 page views by spider programs (73 desktop, 0 mobile app, 8 mobile web)
• 4 page views by automated (3 desktop, 0 mobile app, 1 mobile web)

Internet search engines and some other websites use spider software (also known as web crawlers) to update their web content or indices of other sites' web content. You can see that the spiders came back each day (81 times on 15th, 21 on 16th, and 8 on 17th). If you look at a long-standing page that rarely gets edited, like this example you can see that it got an average of 2 visits from spiders per day since July 2015, but some days it got lots of visits (e.g. 109 on 21 October 2018). You do not need to do anything to get the page indexed - the spiders will look at content and do it automatically. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks, I was confused by this , it says indexing requires "patrolling". Mixmon (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing says that article pages need to be either 90 days old or to have been marked as patrolled before they are indexed. There is evidently an invisible tag. I do not know how to tell whether a page has been patrolled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This log shows that the page has been marked as patrolled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to use edit summaries when reverting other editors. (The only acceptable exception would be if you had rollback and were reverting pure vandalism, which is not the case here.) In you current issue, you are 60% right, working to understand the point-of-view of editors who disagree with you pays off because you can improve your position to being 90% right or better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Advice when people cite policies for reverting you

Sometimes people cite policies (or essays) and explain how the policy/essay applies.

But sometimes they cite a policy or essay but do not explain how it applied. When that happens, it is worth you looking at the policy/essay and asking how it applies. If you cannot see how it applies, say so on the article talk page. We all make mistakes - sometimes a policy shortcut that sounds like it should apply is to a policy that is either irrelevant or says the opposite of what the other editor assumed it did. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Abhijit Iyer Mitra

You would increase the chances of the article on Abhijit Iyer Mitra being kept if you went through the citations, as I advised when I reviewed the article for you.

Another think that would increase the chances of the article being kept would be if you searched for more about Abhijit Iyer Mitra.

• A petition to the courts abut same sex marriage.
• A court case against Twitter who banned his account. See also this article.

Potentially there is lots of stuff, but be careful because more than one person might have the same name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I am aware about these incidents and I am going to do some changes to the article but I need time. I can't do everything at once. Last week I was busy in this article Anand Ranganathan. Mixmon (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Then post something at Talk:Abhijit Iyer Mitra#GNG saying this. Do not be offended if they move the article to draft. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Abhijit Iyer Mitra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhijit Iyer Mitra 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/Abhijit Iyer Mitra 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.

Editorkamran (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Anand Ranganathan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anand Ranganathan 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/Anand Ranganathan (2nd nomination) 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.

Editorkamran (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Important alert

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.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Editorkamran (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your edit to Anand Ranganathan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted articles

The article on Anand Ranganathan ‎has been deleted. But at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan (2nd nomination), Star Mississippi said that if someone wants this to actively improve in Draft, happy to provide it. The article needed a lot more work. Why not post a message on at User talk:Star Mississippi asking him/her to move the content and edit history of the deleted page to Draft:Anand Ranganathan.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I did some work on the other article you created, but it still got deleted. I have asked Star Mississippi to put it into draft.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And it has been restored at Draft:Abhijit Iyer Mitra.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning

This is the one warning you'll get for this, so please read and understand. The next time you connect a Wikipedia editor to an account or name off of Wikipedia when the editor has not disclosed this on-wiki you will be blocked. Such behavior is unacceptable. See WP:OUTING for the policy details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'll be careful next time but if possible, could you please clarify what exactly went wrong? I said some users are encouraging people to vandalise the page I didn't name anyone until a edior himself accepted it. Mixmon (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You linked an editor to a twitter account. Even if they didn't deny it after the fact, it's still WP:OUTING. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's what I was asking. Let me rephrase the question to be more objective.

Does WP:OUTING apply even when name of any particular editor is not mentioned (because there is no way to confirm twitter user and wiki user are same even if their usernames are same)? (Yes/No)

I didn't even ping any editor. One editor of the same name came and claimed he was the twitter user.Mixmon (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're in a discussion with someone and you post a link to a twitter user with a very similar name to that editor you don't need to say the quiet part out loud for it to be outing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that's subjective interpretation, anyway I'll be careful. Thanks for your help Mixmon (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential canvassing

Mixmon, I saw your note at CrusaderForTruth2023's talkpage and wanted to let you know about wikipedia's policies regarding canvassing, which the note may have brushed up against. Since this appears to be an isolated incidence (afaict), you shouldn't worry too much about that particular message but do keep WP:CANVASS in mind in the future. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for informing. Mixmon (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Vikram Sampath

Your own history on this page shows you have been attempting to push a POV here. Can you describe why you are pretending to be an arbitrator all of now? >>> Extorc.talk 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That was when I was very new to wikipedia and (my account was less than a week old). Anyway how is that relevant, can we debate logically? Mixmon (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw how was that "pushing a POV"? In previous discussions, editors demanded a particular source. I had that source so I shared it and proposed some changes. OK, I was not familiar with Wikipedia policies but you can't say I was saying something without sharing sources like in this case. Mixmon (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Merely a few days ago you were engaging in canvassing over a similar subject which is heavily related to your POV,[2] so I don't think your account creation date matters at this stage. >>> Extorc.talk 18:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What's exactly your point? I myself have not participated in that discussion ( If I had to push POV that would be expected) I have still not read every behavioral guideline of wiki. Also one of the changes proposed was accepted by TB. You don't have any logical argument to offer? Mixmon (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are more interested to push a POV. Why questions raised by Razer and IP are not addressed appropriately? Mixmon (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are more interested in doing "tit for tat" accusations instead of learning from your mistake then you are only proving my initial points here to be correct. >>> Extorc.talk 19:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am ready to debate logically (here or in talk page) but you are only putting accusations and not content dispute-related arguments, even I can claim this fact proves me right. Mixmon (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Middle income trap

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Middle income trap, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

You created an article on Abhijit Iyer-Mitra last February, and they moved it to draft after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Iyer Mitra. I did my best to improve the draft, but it has been rejected at WP:AFC. (See Draft:Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.)

I had never tried to put an article through the WP:AFC process before. I won't do it again. A few days ago the backlog at WP:AFC was about 350; it is now 35. I now understand why. The reviewer's contribution history shows that they spent three minutes doing the review, including posting comments. It would have taken me about half an hour to have checked the citations against content. If I had done it by sampling (instead of checking all of them), I might have been able to get that down to ten minutes.

I am sorry I have failed. If you think it is worth saving, please put it on your watch list, copy it, or whatever. My impression is that WP:AFC is not worth using.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If Iyer-Mitra had been a footballer's wife, it would have been fairly easy to prove notability in a way that the reviewer could have understood. Footballers' wives attract the right kind of "about Abhijit" newspaper article.

But Iyer-Mitra is notable for doing things. There is a rule that a person does not count as notable enough for an article if they are notable just one thing. The mistaken view that Iyer-Mitra was only notable for Konark Sun Temple was why the article got deleted at WP:AFD. The draft article tried to show that he was notable for many things. But there is no footballer's wife article, so it was a waste of time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)