User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 2

April 2017 - June 2017

Duplicate

Duplicate. Yosri (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yosri: pardon? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Parbhani

Hello,
You used <!-- --> to remove some information from the infobox of Parbhani. But you did not provide any details at all. Kindly provide your reasoning. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate. Yosri (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yosri: yes, in the first go itself i understood you were replying to my question. But I still dont know what you mean by "duplicate".

The co-ordinates you commented out, is of a landmark. It has a different format, and precision than the co-ordinates of a city. No duplication. If thats what you are referring to. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me review that again when I back to PC. No ideas why need two coordinate for 1 place. Yosri (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have review the changes and realised that the second set of coordinate is meant for the monument. I have restored the coordinate. I was unable to see the difference earlier as it is difficult to read/compare from phone screen. Thanks for highlighting it to me. Yosri (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yosri: thanks —usernamekiran (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Earl of Arundel

Why are you edit warring with someone on their own talk page? Kindly stop. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, I see you are a fan of the word "kindly" too. That's great--but still, please stop edit warring on a user talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Hi
  thanks for your polite gesture. :) But if you see the contribution history of "Earl of Arundel", you will realise he has been edit warring, and creating problems.
  And yes, I am a fan of the "kindly" word too :-D because I am polite. :D :) —usernamekiran[talk] 19:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh I am terrifically rude. If your charge is accurate, I suggest you take it to ANI, for instance--I have no opinion on the matter. But restoring messages that have been deleted is not in accordance with our conventions, and it only rubs the editor the wrong way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: already done

Roger D. Craig

User:Usernamekiran, Have you seen this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig? --Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassment. Swarm ♠ 23:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Leave Swarm alone

Regarding your on-wiki complaints: OK, you've expressed your disappointment; that's enough. You can't make demands of people like that. This scrutiny is not going to happen, and you need to stop demanding it.

Regarding your off-wiki emails: Assuming Swarm's description of the emails is even remotely accurate: Do not ever email Swarm again. If you do, you will be blocked indef, with email and talk page access removed. I assume you're aware Swarm can forward emails he gets from you to anyone? So mischaracterizing what they say would be a mistake.

You are embarrassing yourself. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Hello,

I just left a message on the admin's noticeboard. I am not going to contact Swarm again. I am just going to leave wikipedia forever. That would be best for all of us including me. This is a simple solution for the mess that I caused in last 3-4 days. I apologise again. Goodbye. —usernamekiran[talk] 00:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like it is for the best. Goodbye. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Article not eligible for WP:PROD

I see you placed a WP:PROD tag at Rupatai Patil Nilangekar. This individual served as a member of the Lok Sabha (a national legislature) and is therefore inherently notable per WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your request at WP:RFP...

....if you have not done so already, please read our protection policy; there is some vandalism on the page you wanted to have protected, but disruptive edits are few and far between. Look at the article-history of Indiana Pacers: that is vandalism which warrants protection. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

hi. Thanks for the message. :)

yes, I'm aware about most of the wikipedia policies. :) as I mentioned on the request page, it was a confusion.

The disruptive editing is like tides. Like Acroterion stated on my talkpage above in User_talk:Usernamekiran#UK_Kennedy.2FLincoln.2FTitanic_IP, these edits mostly come from school IPs. I think it has something to do with urban legends as the edits are made on titanic, president Lincoln, some allegedly haunted prison in US and so on.

CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory was recently protected. Even though I don't make much edits, I regularly keep an eye on a lot of articles relate to JFK. So I thought the recently added protection was removed. I apologise for the confusion.

thanks again. :) —usernamekiran[talk] 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Turn to reference

Hi User:Usernamekiran, can you help me turn this source [1] into a reference please? Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Hi,
Thanks for contacting me. Unfortunately, I am not goot at creating the ref templates. I usually go with bare references. But I will try. Kindly give me a few minutes. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Here is the code that you should use:

{{Google books|tWsVAAAAYAAJ|Diccionario manual,ó Vocabulario completo de las lenguas catalana-castellana: Va añadido un vocabulario de todos los santos mas comunes cuyo nombre varia en castellano|page=337}}
All you have to do now, is to insert the desired page number instead of 42. I hope this helps. If not, please let me know. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 16:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That works fine User:Usernamekiran, I'm going to incorporate it to Taberner page, so feel free to edit the page too. Thanks for taking time out to do it 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Good to see you back on the wiki Kiran! And yes, I just assumed that since you had "retired" that I should remove the adoption userbox. Welcome back! VTnav (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)VTnav

@VTnav: I have so much to tell you many different things. Would it be okay if I sent you one email? But as it is just one, then it is going to be very long one lol. And no, I will never leave wiki again. I have studied it a lot of wiki policies n stuff. Leaving is not worth it.

Are you going to be regular again? Or twice in a week sort of thing?

I will send you the mail tomorrow. You will get all the answers, and you will have some questions I think. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sam Giancana into Draft:Collaborations between Central Intelligence Agency and American Mafia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the information. This will not be repeated again. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is WIKIPEDIA catering to ISIS and having an Islamic point

Islam is a cult and thus needs to be told on how in past they have forcefully converted people to their idiotic beliefs Why are you spreading lies? Please spread truth! Satyamev Jayate!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.238.149 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

I fail to understand how that is promoting, i made a genuine edit with a genuine citation. Most of the citations on the page are from Android blog? Just because the one I added is not one of the top blogs doesn't mean I am promoting.

Same goes for the movie edit. First bollywood movie to get its own emoji with a proper citation. What's wrong with that?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchy cool (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Munchy cool: Hi, I apologise for the confusion. But you had only 2(+1) edits at the time. And all of them added http://www.desinerd.co.in/ to two completely different articles, so it looked like promotional to me. Either ways, as per wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources the website you added can not be used as a source. If you want to add citation/source it should meet the policy. Thanks. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I just went through the guidelines again, which guideline is being violated? Can you please point me to the same. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchy cool (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Munchy cool: I just made this edit, I hope you like it. Give me a few minutes, and I will get back to you with exact points. Also, on talkpages please sign your comments by four of these: ~
I will post a help message on your page. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Munchy cool: the source you provided may qualify a little for this: WP:QUESTIONABLE, a little for this WP:RSSELF. As a combination of both of a little, it cant be used on wikipedia as a "reliable source". If you read these essays, and some essays linked within the,, you will find out a lot about the process of chosing sources. I would recommend you reading them. :-) Happy editing. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Munchy cool:

@Munchy cool: The content about Tubelight's emoji is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an academic resource, not an advertising platform. We're not here to document every mundane aspect of this film, only the most significant. Can you argue for why the release of an emoji is going to be of academic value in 10 years? How will film students grow as a result of learning that a film released a set of still drawings? Note also that per WP:V, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, and maybe both of you should take a look at MOS:FILM since that's our bible for film articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Hello, The content about Tubelight emoji was not ridiculous. If 10 years down the line, someone does a google search on first bolloywood movie to have twitter emoji, and he can't verify on wiki then wiki is useless. It is not a mundane aspect, again you may not like it but it's a fact that its the first bollywood movie with it's own twitter emoji which is Big. Film students down the line will see this as a marketing point, and maybe a lot for more movies start doing it. More advertising means more revenue for the movie, and hence appreciation for the marketing team. Also, I was not advertising. I am not foolish enough to post links from the same website. I know as a first time user making those edits, you will tag it as spam and advertising. But, I had thought mods would actually read the citation and see the content. But, thats not the case. Munchy cool (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Munchy cool

@Munchy cool: I checked the source, and content provided in it. That's how I realised it was not a reliable source. After that I checked for other sources. When I realised that the same news/trivia was available on other notable sources, I looked at your contrib history. And only after that I undid your edits. First I wasn't sure about keeping the trivia, then thought it would be harmless. But now, after doing a little reading; I agree with Cyphoidbomb. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Florence MacLeod Harper

Sources look reliable to me. Roseohioresident (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Roseohioresident: so, do you think removing notability tag would be okay now? I think its okay. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed my Signature (finally)

Hi Kiran, remember how my signature would never work. I found out why. I would put *four tildes*VTnav instead of just the four tildes. Stupid, I know! VTnav (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• @VTnav: Hi, nice to see you back. How was your spring break? Are you back on wikipedia again? Currently I am a lot busy in real life, so I am spending like only an hour on wiki per day. Are you interested in some new stuff to do on wiki?
  Sorry, I couldnt send the email to you earlier. I will try to do that today or tomorrow. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Source code

{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{{{|safesubst:}}}issubst}}<noinclude>yes</noinclude>|yes |<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/{{{1<noinclude>|Lists</noinclude>}}}|list of {{{1<noinclude>|Lists</noinclude>}}}-related deletion discussions]]. {{{2|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}}</small> |{{error |message=This template must be [[Wikipedia:Substitution|substituted]]. }} }}

There goes the source code!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: just posted a reply there. :-D —usernamekiran(talk) 11:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Parbhani

Template:Infobox Parbhani has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: i was going to do it a week ago or two, but it skipped my mind. Thanks for making it speedy under the clause "creator requested deletion in good-faith". See you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Usernamekiran. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks a lot for the tips/feeback. I will definitely work on them. I usually avoid it to not to become a wiki-lawyer lol. I reviewed two pages. Would you please take a look at my contrib history and let me know if i did okay with them?thanks a lot again. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The tagging looks acceptable at first glance. Not positive on the notability of the subjects, but I trust Legacypac's judgment (he moved the articles to the mainspace). It's common practice on Wikipedia, I believe, to treat external links as a kind of "reference" too when they support the content in the article, so if there is even one external link that supports article content, e.g. to an official website, I would use {{refimprove}} instead of {{unreferenced}}. If it's a BLP, consider using {{BLP sources}} or {{BLP unreferenced}} (or even WP:BLPPROD) instead. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As for wikilawyering, the biggest thing you should avoid is paying so much attention to the letter of the policies that you forget the spirit of the policies. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policy too, for that reason. Beyond that, it's more than acceptable (I would say encouraged) to cite Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when making arguments about things like deletion or how content should be presented. They're there precisely because they summarize what the community's consensuses are on certain issues. The one thing to keep in mind is that it is more polite to explain a policy using your own words to a newcomer than it is to link them to a complicated policy page, particularly if it is in all caps like WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulation

Congratulation on your new page reviewer rights.

kindly review this 1 Sanya Hongtangwan Airport

Sulaimandaud (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sulaimandaud. Congratulations to you too. :-) I am looking at it. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sulaimandaud: Done. PROD'ed as per WP:RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

About Jayraj Salgaokar wikipedia page

Dear Kiran,

Hi, I am Vaibhav Madhukar Mahadik from Kalnirnay. We are making this wikipedia page by taking prior permission from Jayaraj Salgaokar sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabi28 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is the case, then bring this up in the deletion discussion, not here. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Vabi28: Hi, thanks for reply. Kindly read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and update your userpage accordingly. Also, the problem here is not about permission, it is about notability. If you have any problems/doubts please feel free to ask, I will be happy to help you. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Both of you, kindly calm down. @ZLEA: Once the PROD tag has been removed, it should not be placed back. It is not a golden rule though. @Vabi28: You shouldnt have removed the tag without improving the article Vaibhav.

I am goin to nominate the article for deletion now (through a different process). Even if anybody takes down the tag, a computer program will put it back. Usually, it takes 7 days to perform a decision. So Vaibhav, kindly make sure the article meets the notability policy for a person. You have seven days. If you keep working on article, and you need more time in the end, we can give 5 more days (7+5). So instead of fighting within each other, please concentrate on content building. Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, We would like to know where exactly breech of policy is occurring @ZLEA,so that we can revise the mistake and make this page happily live again. Need your cooperation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabi28 (talk • contribs)

@Vabi28: It has been decided to keep the article and to work on it. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayraj Salgaokar.

As for the policies, there are currently two breaches/violation that I have observed. The first one is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Another wikipedia policy states that usernames shouldnt represent any organisation, your username represent an individual, so it is not a problem. But, as per WP:NOSHARING policy, an account should not be used by multiple persons. One account must be used only by one person. Sometimes (like the comment above), you use words like "we" instead of "I" giving impression that the account is being used by more than one person. I suggest you to avoid such words. Also, kindly read these two policies: 1: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; 2: WP:NOSHARING.

Regarding the article Jayraj Salgaokar, it will not be deleted. Wikipedia editors will improve the article. Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

pinging Vabi28 (previous pings were broken). —usernamekiran(talk) 06:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sanya Hongtangwan Airport

Hi Usernamekiran

Thanks for so promptly and graciously withdrawing WP:Articles for deletion/Sanya Hongtangwan Airport. I hope that my comment in the discussion didn't appear bitey.

I thought it might be helpful to explain how I found sources. My initial search for Sanya Hongtangwan Airport didn't find much on Gnews, so I tried Sanya new Airport on Gnews, which was better. However, a lot of the hits referred to the existing Sanya Phoenix airport, I then did a few site specific searches on Asian news media: http://www.scmp.com, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn, and http://www.news.cn/english/.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Hi. And lol no! Your communication was not at all bitey. It wasnt "warm", but it was formal, and definitely not bitey. :-)

I had found some sources about the airport, but i was not sure if they were reliable. I always had this problem. Kindly look at the third comment here. If you have some tips regarding that, I will appriciate it a lot if you share them with me See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start looking for sources on Cuba. The Florida press probably covers it, but is likely to take hostile line on anyone associted with Castro, so I'd prefer to avoid. The Latin American press seems to me to be potentially more helpful, but no hablo español.

And sourcing wrt to anything to do with the JFK assassination is another huge nightmare. Too many smokescreens and far too many conspiracy theories.

So my suggestion: give it a wide berth! <grin>

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: lol i was not talking about that particular matter. In general. How to identify WP:RS? This is the reason why I made the boo-boo with Sanya Airport.

And yes, adding sources to content of JFK assassination is extremely difficult. Most of the people involved (including conspiract theorist) have very impressive langauage, bibliography, proper citations to their work, so its very difficult to distinguish. So I usually stick to primary sources, and then find a secondary source that corroborates with the primary, and I add them both to the article lol. Sometimes, if by mistake I add "conspiracy source" or "not credible source", then some other editor corrects it. Thats an advantage of collaborative work. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Kiran. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayraj Salgaokar, I removed the bolding of one part of your signature as that was breaking the Afd script (where the Afd script was disregarding noting the !vote). I hope you don't mind that. Also, I suspect that this might happen in other Afds too where you might be commenting (so if you're okay with it, you could consider removing the bolding of the Talk part of your signature). Thanks. Lourdes 16:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Lourdes. Thanks for pointing it out. I have changed it. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Jayraj Salgaokar wikipedia page

Please explain me what exactly the problem in this article and how can we live it again? You will get all information related to it on https://kalnirnay.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabi28 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Consider self reverting

Your edits to the cartoon pornography article. There does not need to be two images to meet due weight for Hentai. Right now, in that short of article, it's a bit unnecessary to have two images for the exact same concept. If you'd like to replace the original image with that, we can certainly discuss that, but I think the current image is superior. Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tutelary: yes, the current image is superior; i dont consider it replacing. It is not undue, it is appropriate if that article has two images. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If the article had about ~500-~1000 more words on it, and there were suitable other topics to add images to, then yes, it would be considered appropriate. But right now, the article sits at a ~223 word count and two images per 100 words is an insane ratio. Right now, the due weight for hentai images is overrepresented by two images, but is not by one image. I will not revert you because I don't want to engage in edit warring, so again I ask you to revert. Tutelary (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tutelary: i will soon merge the articles. I dont see a point for a discussion regarding an image on article with few hours of life. Also, kindly do not remove the image till then. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also recommend waiting for other people's responses on both articles, before taking the bold lead to merge both articles. I'm still not 100% sure they should be merged. Tutelary (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

About Jayraj Salgaokar page

Hi Kiran,

I am going to rewrite this article and post it again. Is it fine? Can you help me regarding tags and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ? So it's easy for me to develop the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabi28 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vabi28: Hi,
Thanks for the consideration. Kindly post following code (excluding "nowiki"), to Talk:Jayraj Salgaokar under the existing content. Do not deleting anything there, and save the talkpage. This message is for the assumption that you not being paid specifically for editing the articles.

{{Connected contributor|User1=Vabi28 |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks= I am not being paid for editing the article. But I am an employee of [[Kalnirnay]], and directly connected/in contact with Mr. Jayraj Salgaokar. ~~~~}}

And no, it is not allowed for an editor to edit an article with he/she has a conflict of interest. I suggest you to wait for a few days while other editors of wikipedia work on the article. After that, you can suggest changes/improvements to the article, on the talk page of that particular article. This restriction is only for the articles with conflict of interest. You are allowed to edit other articles freely, which are not related to Kalnirnay. You can find answers to all your doubts/questions on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

If you dont find all the answers there, or have any question/doubt about wikipedia, please free to ask me. I will try my best to help you. Also, please sign your posts/comments on talk pages (not on articles) by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) like: ~~~~ Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Hi,
Thanks for the help. Vaibhav Mahadik (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Regards, —Vabi28(talk)

Jacqueline i am coming

Hi I am having a few problems with the spelling corrections that you suggested Jacqueline already has a U in it and if you add 2 M's it looks weird Jacquelimme ...or maybe I missed something ;o) Domdeparis (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domdeparis! Sorry for the confusion. It was supposed to be a joke. Jacqueline Fernandez is an attractive actress. Many news outlets (TV, radio, print) have described her as "heartbeat of youth", "subject of fantasy of many males" and so on. I was trying to say "coming" with a U and two Ms. So it would become "Jacqueline I am c-u-mming" —usernamekiran(talk) 07:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact I got the joke but thought it would be funny to pretend that I didn't...bit disappointed that it fell flat, just as an anecdote one of my first girlfriends was called Cumming...not an easy name to live with when you are a teenager! Domdeparis (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: lol. I can imagine recation of other friends. I didnt know Cumming was a real surname. I know Cummings is real though. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Help

Can you explain me how do you discuss on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page? I mean do you guys use any toolbar/gadget or just click edit and type manually ??

Thanks and best regards Sulaimandaud (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sulaiman! I assume you are asking about voting, and normal comments, right? For that, no. But there other tools/scripts for listing, and delsort processes; like User:Fox Wilson/delsort, and User:Enterprisey/delsort. I have never used these scripts though.

• In case you find it irritating when a lot of code is edited while commenting about one article, then there another method. This method is very useful for mobile devices as well. Instead of clicking edit on the AfD page, open the article that you want to comment on. Then on this article, in "page issues" there would be a notice hat it is being considered for deletion. In that message, there is a link, "this acrticle's entry". If you click on it, it is a lot less code, and becomes easy to participate.

I hope this helps. If you still have any doubts, please feel free to ask me. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 04:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sulaimandaud: I forgot to ping you in previous message. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: OpenGeofiction

Hello Usernamekiran. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OpenGeofiction, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for the suggestion. I will search for sources/refs. At the first glance, it doesnt look promotional but it looks like not notable. I will work on it soon. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Unlike the search before nominating for speedy, I did a detailed search this time, I could find only one RS. Instead of ProD, I nominated it for AfD; so that the subject could be discussed properly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenGeofiction. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I found two on GNews, Popular Science and Süddeutsche Zeitung (which is a renowned German newspaper), which is why I declined the speedy. Not sure if they are sufficient to establish notability but they both cover the subject so I assumed significance for the purposes of A7. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Nope. You are right that the article doesnt deserve a speedy deletion; I agree with you on that. I couldnt find the German newspaper, google mostly tends to show me results from South East Asia, and East Asia (multiple langauges). Maybe it is because of my previous search history (the so called "tailored experience"), or maybe because I am located in India. But still I am not sure if it passes GNG or not, so I took it to AfD instead of ProD. Maybe some other editor would come up with better sources. Thanks for your co-operation, and input. :-) see you around
—usernamekiran(talk) 09:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Amina Girls' National School Matale

It is not good practice to propose to merge an article whilst there is currently an open AfD discussion on the article. I'd strongly suggest that remove the proposed merge tags from the respective articles and add your comments, if you believe the articles should be merged to the comments section at the article's AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: I didnt know about that. Thanks for letting me know. :-) I thought, only renaming page is supposed be a bad practice. I already posted a vote for merger in the AfD discussion around the time when I propsed the merger. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Query for general info

@Usernamekiran:, One of my article Shakeel Ahmad Khan was reviewed by you, however it is doesn't show in google search. Is there any coding or indexing problem? Regards--Yavarai (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

@Yavarai: hi. Thanks for asking. I will soon look into it. Kindly give me a few hours for that. I will contact you when I find the answer. Also take a look at this: {{ping}} Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yavarai: sorry i didnt answer you earlier. I checked the source-code of the page, everything is fine on the end of Wikipedia. Pages of any website being indexed by a search engine depends completely on the web crawler of that particular search engine. Regarding google, it usually takes from a few hours to a couple of days. But as the page in discussion is completely okay from our side, all we can do is to wait for google to index it. I hope this answers your doubt. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: sir, it's so nice of you. You are the first person who answered me in details. Got to learn few important things. Thanks angain and warm regards --Yavarai (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

June 2017

Sri Lankan cricket team in India in 1986–87. Please do not use PROD indiscrimately and make sure you have your facts right before making assertions about articles that are easily challenged. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• @BlackJack: a level two template? Seriously? And do you really think my facts are wrong about India and Sri Lanka playing cricket since decades?
• I am currently extremely busy in real life for 2-3 days more. I will get back to you as soon as I get enough time.
• And stop issuing such warnings/templates indiscrimately to good-faith editors. It discourages them. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Hello. I am a little less busy now. I would love to know your rationale for issuing a level 2 warning instead of the trimmed down message above. Also, I am interested in knowing why you issued it after five days from incident. I ProD'ed an article. Another editor contested it, and explained it on the talkpage. There were no edits from my side after that. How is that disruptive? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your PROD rationale was: "Not encyclopedic article. Shri Lanka and India have been playing cricket with each-other since decades. Creating such articles for every year is not feasible. The article has also been incomplete since at least January 2016. Nobody cares about that stuff/particular year. Not notable. Just one randomly chosen year from long history of Indian cricket". Taking your points in turn:

The article is encyclopaedic because the tour is a notable event per WP:CRIN and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to record any information that meets the requirements of WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V (I would however say that although the sources cited are good, more would be better).

Sri Lanka started playing Test cricket in 1982 so they have been active as a top-level international team for 35 years now. They have toured India ten or eleven times (not sure about status of one tour which didn't include Test matches); India in return have toured Sri Lanka a similar number of times though a couple of their visits were for limited overs internationals only. All of these top-level tours are notable events and it is one of the aims of WP:CRIC to create an article about all such tours involving the ten countries who play Test cricket (plus World Cups, Champions Trophy, etc.).

Feasibility is not a consideration re article creation. Rome was not built in a day and it is a goal of WP:CRIC to deal with all redlinks eventually. As I've explained above, international tours between these two countries are not annual events but it wouldn't matter if they are because we do, for example, create season reviews for each of the top-level cricket nations. In the case of England, there is a season review for every single season since 1726 and they are all notable and verifiable. Feasibility is only a matter of having the time to do the work. As for space, please read WP:NOTPAPER.

You say the article has been "incomplete since January 2016" but that is incorrect as it was not created until May 2017. Even so, the length of time since last edit is immaterial. It exists and it needs more work doing, as do 99% of WP articles, but it presents a useful summary of the tour. What it lacks is narrative and a longer introduction (in fact, I will place attention tags to highlight these shortcomings). Many articles are begun and then remain unedited for several years.

When you say "Nobody cares about that stuff/particular year", you are making an unsupportable assumption because there are millions of cricket fans in the two countries who care very much about their international teams. Your assertion is WP:POV and would not be acceptable at AfD.

You say the tour is "not notable" and you need to provide a rationale for that view because it clearly meets WP:CRIN and, therefore, WP:N.

"Just one randomly chosen year from long history of Indian cricket" is a comment I find hard to understand. There was nothing random about it. The tour happened in that season and, because it is a notable event, a CRIC editor addressed a redlink and created the article. As for the long (and illustrious) history of Indian cricket, among our aims are to create an article about every single Indian season since the country's cricket reached first-class standard in the 19th century and an article about every single international tournament in which India have been involved.

I would say that your tone as well as your rationale was inappropriate and that is disruptive because, in your own words, "it discourages good-faith editors". By the way, no one is accusing you of breaching WP:AGF. You came across as condescending to the editor and dismissive of his work. Phrases like "such articles", "nobody cares", "that stuff" and "one randomly chosen year" add up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is never a reason to PROD an article, still less submit it to AfD. The notice on your page is a caution, not a warning, because I am concerned about your tone and, as explained above, the lack of rationale. As for the five-day time lapse, I spotted the PROD because I was communicating with Abishe about another matter and was curious as to why a tour article should recive a PROD.

I wish you well because I think you are a good editor but you need to be very careful about how you address your concerns and make sure you have got your facts right about an article in terms of the core policies WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V before acting. And that, by the way, is voice of experience because I have often been wrongly dismissive in the past and have been threatened with sanctions because of it. Abishe is still a WP:NEWBIE but he is doing well and he has recently been writing about cricket played by disabled people, which is praiseworthy. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Hi again. I apologise for my replies here on my talkpage. I am currently under a lot of stress, and it sort of came out here. I usually avoid wiki editing when stressed, but I got an email when you posted on my talkpage.
Thank you for the suggestions, and explaination. Yes, I agree the ProD langauge was a little "not formal". I will need to be careful with that.
I dont remember where I came across Aishe. We never interacted, but I have seen his work. He is a good editor. Again, sorry for all the mess. If there is anything that I can help you with, please free to ask me. See you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your kind attention please

@Usernamekiran: please view my newly created article Shrivardhan Trivedi and let me know whether I have made any mistake. Regards--Yavarai (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

@Yavarai: hi. technically, the article is good/encyclopaedic. But as the other editors have stated, Trivedi's only notable work is in one show. But the awards should be able to give a little leverage to the article. You have a few more days till deletion takes place (19 June). Before that, you should add something which would make him notable enough. Maybe some award, but I would suggest adding his other roles if possible. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance sir. Regards--Yavarai (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

Reference added

Hi, I added one reference on Li Bulou. It is a book published by Routledge. I do not know if it is reliable enough? (Though I personally do trust routledge to be something reliable). ----Studyroom of Subtraction (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@損齋: hi. The book seems good enough to be a reliable source. But the article still remains an orphan. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I will try to adress that issue. Thanks.----Studyroom of Subtraction (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@損齋: Thanks for adding the source. :-) I will try to contribute in that article too. I also removed the notability tag. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Earliest Greek democracies

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

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

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

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

Possible copy-vio

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

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

Jangalkanya Setu

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

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

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

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

DURAND ECHEVERRIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback on page

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

declined speedy delete, invalid criterion

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

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

WikiProject OC

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

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

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

Template relevancy

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime

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

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

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

The Zookeeper

Hi Usernamekiran,

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

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

Notability

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Reference to your AfD nomination for Xiaomi Mi 6, I wanted to whats the notability guideline for cellphones because there are number of articles regarding cellphones which I think should be nomination for deletion. Sulaimandaud (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sulaimandaud. There is no particular guideline for mobiles. We have to use summary of all other guidelines. This includes, WP:GNG, WP:DEGRADE, WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:ENN among few others. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Some invitations sent

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

Vaibhav Chhaya

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

Science and technology in Turkmenistan

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

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

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

Krivine machine

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

Hi PIerre.Lescanne

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

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

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

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

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

Spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of terrorist incidents in June 2017

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

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