Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:50A6:B843:D402:CE33:C681:83DA (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gotitbro. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Ekabhishek^talk 03:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gotitbro. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DVD Cover of Malgudi Days.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In future, when you are uploading a new version of the same file, like this one File:Malgudi Days, TV series, DVD cover.jpg, you do it there it self. Instead of creating a new file. Makes things simpler. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 03:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For updating this [1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please try to add a useful edit summary for your edits, especially one where you are adding a merge template. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Indian Ten Rupees Coin - 2005 Obverse.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DOTPH INC., BNRS Search.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may have noticed I rolled back you edits at Otello Corporation. I have done so because two other editors have independently redirected the article to Opera Software. I understand you object to this redirect, and so I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Opera Software as consensus seems to be against you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained myself here User_talk:Onel5969#Otello_Corporation. The article was previously redirected as another page was incorrectly move there and the consensus was that both companies are distinct (User talk:Fayenatic london#CFD results: Opera Software). I am only fixing WP:COAT and the article already fits WP:CORP. The editors aren't in conflict with me but with the previous page move which I had now corrected. I extensively sourced and cited info in the article and request you to revert the rollback. This rollback also breaks meaningful links in Opera Software. Gotitbro (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my edit was inline with the previous consensus and I even added the discussions in my edit summaries. Not sure why you didn't go through them. Gotitbro (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just used it randomly as a joke. A combination of numbers and letters that are difficult to read.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telephone numbers in Mauritius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pears (soap), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check Template:Infobox criminal and fill up the prison status , location etc details as described in the template. thank you. --DBigXray 21:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray: I have added some fields that were missing but since the article does not contain much info most fields cannot be filled unfortunately. Gotitbro (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that is good for now, It is not expected to fill all the fields. there are far too many of them. we should only try to fill to importnatn onces and valid ones. it is helpful now. --DBigXray 09:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gotitbro. When you moved Asianet to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Asianet" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @R'n'B: Thanks for letting me know. All of these pages with the Asianet link need to be changed to Asianet (TV channel). Is there a tool that can help me with this? As these are a lot of articles I don't think I'll be able to fix them manually. It would be great if you can change the links as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're sure that all of those links should be to the TV channel article, that's easy to do. But can you be certain that none of them actually refer to one of the other topics on the disambiguation page? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @R'n'B: Yes, I'm certain that all links on there are for the TV channel. Gotitbro (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T-Series (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trishul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Google Dictionary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IIFL company logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google search dictionary.png, which you've attributed to Google. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AF Screenshot.png, which you've attributed to acronymfinder.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shezan International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Talk:Dehradun: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reversion; from the cited reference given, the changes are factual, not vandalism. Please take this to talk if you still disagree. I do think the editor is an employee of the company and needs to declare potential conflict of interest, but Bloomberg News is considered a reliable source. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahria Town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is in reference to your move of District courts in India earlier today, please see: Wikipedia's manual of style on capitalisation of stuff, basically, as you probably already know, anyting barring proper nouns should not be capitalised, but, anything else shouldn't be. So, things like 'Saharanpur District Court' would be written in capitals, an article about the concept of district courts in—in general—should be written in the lower case. Cf. Prime Minister of India and prime minister, President of the United States and president, Governor-General of India and governor-general et al. Don't be afraid to ask me if you've got any other doubt. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ: I see the issue with capitalization but then the page should have been moved to "District courts of India", as all references in the article state it, not to District courts in India. I am going to move the page to District courts of India, if there any issues let me know. Gotitbro (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

Thanks for going through my edits on the article on Nuclear Triads. I have various independent sources (not wiki articles) that confirm that Pakistan successfully tested SLCM Babur III in January 2017. The test was conducted in the Arabian sea by the Pakistan Navy and SPD, and the press release includes footage of the cruise missile during it's launch and flight over sea and land.

Regarding referencing, I understand I am rather new to referencing on wiki pages, therefore i'll try to double check and correct mistakes where they exist. Please let me know if you have any pointers.

Please see the following articles related to this matter:

Press release tweet with missile launch footage (ISPR Press Release)

Articles (Article 1)

News and media (Dawn, The Diplomat) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAG Baron (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AAG Baron: Yes, its correct that Pakistan tested the underwater nuclear missile Babur 3 but it still hasn't been tested from a submarine, it was launched from "an underwater, mobile platform" (per the tandfonline.com source), which is what qualifies as a nuclear triad. From the T&F source:

Once it becomes operational, the Babur-3 will provide Pakistan with a triad of nuclear strike platforms from ground, air, and sea. The Pakistani government said the Babur-3 was motivated by a need to match India’s nuclear triad and the “nuclearization of [the] Indian Ocean Region”.

The missile isn't even operational as of now. ISPR press release is not to be used per WP:PRIMARY, Dawn is just a rehash of the press release, The Diplomat is good. Also see what has been mentioned on the Babur missile article itself:

"On 9 January 2017, Pakistan conducted a successful launch of the Babur III missile from an underwater mobile platform. The Babur-III has a range of 450 km and can be used as a second-strike capability. It has been speculated that the missile is ultimately designed to be incorporated with the Agosta 90B class submarine which has been reported to have been modified. However no such tests have been carried out yet."

I'd recommend not adding the PK section in the Nuclear triad article as of now, if you want add it under the "Suspected triad powers" in the article and tweak the text to say that Pakistan is still developing its program. I see that you undid mine and another editor's reverts without providing a valid reason, this is not considered good and you should always discuss such changes rather than reverting multiple editors. I have undone your edits for now, let me know of there are any other concerns. Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the evidence is sufficient as for the successful tests of the SLCM Babur III, as for operational deployment, surely those details are not always sent out as press releases and can not be easily verified. I disagree regarding putting the edits under "suspected nuclear triads", there's far more evidence to support nuclear triad capability than lets say Israel (or previous triads, e.g. France). I reverted your edits because I was making changes to improve citations. I hope you understand, and take a few minutes before the changes are updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAG Baron (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawn Media Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gotitbro. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, I am responding here to your comment at the Pakistan-adminstered Kashmir AfD, because there is too much noise there already. Frankly speaking that footnote is needed only for the AJK article because "Azad Kashmir" is a loaded POV term in India and Indian editors would come and change it to POK. But the pro-Pakistan editors insisted on a reciprocal footnote on Jammu and Kashmir as well, and so I acquiesced. The Gilgit-Baltistan page does not have any of these problems. It is a purely geographical name and has no POV's attached to it. So I am not sure what footnote to put there. Pinging DBigXray as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That footnote to me spoke out as to what others are calling the respective regions. While the AJK lead mentions that both it and GB are referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir no such thing is there on the GB article. A simple mention of this and preferably even (obviously reworked) a note would be great for users who land on the pages via the different terms. Gotitbro (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kautilya3 India calls the Gilgit Baltistan area as a part of PoK. UN and world also consider it a part of "Pak administered Kashmir", this can be noted as a "note" on the GB article.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up on Sajjad Kishwar. I declined your speedy deletion request -- if you look at the sources, one is for a lifetime achievement award, which is definitely a good faith claim of importance. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrictramp: I see, I only marked the page as I could not find anything about the individual elsewhere. Not sure how notable the award is but even the linked article just makes a passing on the individual. Gotitbro (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be a reason to request deletion via PROD or AfD. Avoiding speedy is a lower standard -- A7 is meant to quickly delete articles like "Prof Jones is an Adjunct Professor at Podunk College who wrote an article once." Cheers! ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is mr afshaan memon from the Koyal.pk. Short details:

Koyal.pk is an Pakistani music streaming service. It was launched in 2018. The entire Pakistani Sindhi, pashto, balochi and Urdu music catalog is available to users in all over Pakistan. Koyal.pk features music from 7 languages including the major languages such as Urdu, Punjabi, Saraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi, Hindko and other Pakistani regional languages.

As i can't create it my self so please need your help kindly create if you need any sort of information and data you can ask.

Thanks Afshaan Memon Koyal.pk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyal.pk (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro:, the section "Reactions" from the article 2019 Pulwama attack was removed and new article was created with the title Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack, please take a look. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting reliable govt. sourced content from articles like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar? Different Indian Govt. sources group states into different regions that need to be highlighted in the article. The regional terms like North India or East India are not mentioned in the article bodies either. If you want, different govt. definitions can be added in the article body and then highlighted in the lead. Check Germany which mentions it being part of "Central and Western Europe". Lead fixation can be corrected as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: We don't use government definitions for geographic places, only widely accepted ones are used and placing administrative territories in multiple regions is generally avoided. For Bihar, the general definition is that it is in eastern India as can be seen from Bihar at the Encyclopædia Britannica, for Uttar Pradesh as well it is generally accepted as a northern state ("Uttar Pradesh". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. n.d.). The WP:STATUSQUO for a long time has been the same and I don't see anything that has changed. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

States are government defined not geographic so I believe they need to highlight govt. definitions. Secondly, why should we rely on Britannica and Oxford for definitions only. Check Germany, lede mentions it to be: ...is a country in Central and Western Europe while Germany at the Encyclopædia Britannica mentions it in "north-central europe". And thirdly, is there a consensus regarding how a Political region be defined? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: As I said multiple regional locators such as those added by you and an editor before are avoided as confusing and unclear, Germany might as well be a exception here. It makes no sense to list a state as "north, north-central, eastern etc." all in one go which renders it completely meaningless and confusing. There is a reason the articles described the locations of the states as are definitively accepted. We'll follow the STATUSQUO here and the widely/generally accepted definitions as such. Gotitbro (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Germany be an exception. Obviously its geo-political position has been discussed heavily in Wikipedia. I agree that "north, north-central, eastern etc." looks confusing and can be cleaned but Germany being part of "Central and Western Europe" is just as confusing. The thing is, a lot of states do not fall in a specific region. Do you think Uttar Pradesh is absolutely Northern Indian, obviously it has a big chunk in Central part of India. And you didn't explain why we should follow "Britannica" like a sheep. European country articles do not follow it as it is. Sorry I'm not convinced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it should be discussed at the article of Germany. States might not a fall in a "specific" region but we aren't going to list a myriad zones in the lead. The generally accepted definitions were used before and Britannica is definitely a useful guideline, pointing to any resource does not mean being a sheep. The precedent and STATUSQUO has been clear for a long time, don't see anything that's changed since and needs convincing. Gotitbro (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a concensus or rule regarding this. And why should we consider only Britannica? Doesn't make any sense since European articles do not copy paste from those sites. I agree that multiple regions mentioned might be confusing but we can correct those by mentioning which govt. sources are grouping the states within which zone. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD has to be straightforward and uncomplicated, by mentioning multiple zones/regions add on top of that mentioning govt. sources is the opposite of that. Moreover the govt. zones shouldn't be used to describe the location of the states especially when their location is widely described otherwise [also the government zones are for administrative purposes which do not consider the situation of places]. Britannica isn't the only source but it is definitely a guideline and has been used as the basis of a lot of articles on Wikipedia. What you're suggesting is just confusing and simply unencyclopedic. Gotitbro (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about removing the geographical identifier altogether. We can write it as "Uttar Pradesh is a state in the Upper and Middle Gangetic plains of India, etc, etc". That would be succinct enough. I saw a lot of articles where this has been done. I find the "northern India" confusing since if you see the geography neutrally, you'll find that UP is into central India as well. I don't think 2 sentences Britannica should have that much priority. Nonetheless, Britannica also mentions Uttar Pradesh as multiple regional "north-central India". And about the Bhojpuri region? The one in UP is northern Indian region and neighboring one in in Bihar be is eastern Indian? Kinda absurd don't you think? For identifying a state geographically, you need a geographic source not Britannica. I agree with some of the things you say but not all. I agree that mentioning multiple regions in the opening sentence doesn't look good but they are needed. If not in the first few sentences, then in the latter part of the lead. See Spain. And you want, that can be added into the article body as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is confusing as well, not everyone what the Gangetic plains are etc. While descriptors such as north-central etc. might be kind of acceptable they aren't applicable here as again these aren't accepted widely. The two sentences of Britannica do hold weight because if we go completely technical on geographic basis we'll be straying away from writing for an encyclopedia. Mentioning multiple regions in the lead is definitely not needed and adding a few supporting in the body isn't helpful wither. In the end fact of the matter is, UP is considered a northern state regardless of that it borders Bihar and similarly for other states. Being pedantic and adding a multitude of regions for technicality isn't going to help the WP:READER. Gotitbro (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern" is confusing and vague as hell. A neutral Non-South Asian will definitely think that Uttar Pradesh is not the same as Punjab or Kashmir location wise if he compares it in an Atlas. Gangetic plains or Ganges river is much more specific. And Indian govt. definitions for an Indian state is far from trivial information. I'm flexible enough to agree to some of your concerns but you are getting too much rigid with your POV using Britannica and Oxford dictionaries as supports. Even Great Britain article doesn't have a single reference to Encyclopedia Britannica. And what's this "accepted widely"? By Britannica? You don't seem to accept Britannica's definition of Uttar Pradesh as "north-central" either. Your definition that UP is "northern Indian" is unsourced. Secondly, Britannica is not considered much reliable and is only suitable when there's no source supporting a specific topic. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Is_Encyclopedia_Britannica_a_reliable_source.- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The govt. sources used for zonal arrangements are definitely trivial and best ignored. I don't see anything related to POV in here, simply restoring the STATUSQUO before this multiple region conundrum is clearly not that. UP is clearly a northern state and was thus as such in the article from the beginning, I don't see any reason to unnecessarily table sources for this. [Though descriptions such as "north-central" are better than "northern, north-central, eastern" etc.] The location of Bihar can be discussed, its also best done at its Talk page. Yes, Britannica is tertiary but its definitely WP:RS and has served as the basis for many articles on Wikipedia even the ones being discussed now; so it definitely serves as guideline to follow for encyclopedic articles. Also look at the GA version of the article for Uttar Pradesh. Gotitbro (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a Govt. sources versus "widely accepted" Britannica sources, it is better to have the centralized discussion. I moved it to WP:IN. Check it. I forgot to mention it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I somehow got notified of it, but thanks for letting me know. I'd like to clarify that I meant widely accepted not just for Britannica but generally. Gotitbro (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using misleading edit summaries like you are currently doing. The earlier revert was perfectly explained and since you can't even understand WP:TERRORIST per your exlpanation that "refs does not fall under LABEL; the description can be discussed on Talk" then you need to better stop editing these articles. 39.42.106.141 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@39.42.106.141: Please tone down that WIKILAWYERING. You have removed references and legitimate content from the article which does not fall under LABEL or TERRORIST. If you have a problem with a specific descriptor change the word to something more neutral like militant but removing content under such WP:ES is not done. You are the one who is using "misleading" edit summaries. Gotitbro (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro, this is your second reminder that Khalistan Commando Force is under an Arbcom 1RR discretionary sanction (the first reminder is the editnotice displayed before you edit). Please undo your most recent revert, and discuss the content matter on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I see. I have tried to address the concerns in subsequent edits and have explained it on the Talk page. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I appreciate your efforts to discuss the situation. However, consensus has not been established, and you have reverted twice in violation of the restriction. If we don't enforce the restrictions as written then they become meaningless - if I don't follow up on you breaking the restriction then anyone else has a good reason to expect that they can revert multiple times too. So I have to ask you one more time, in good faith, to please undo your edit. I am dealing with the IP separately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have done so. I think my subsequent were useful hopefully they can help. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro appreciate your contributions and the fact that you agreed to self revert after being requested. Ivanvector as you can see on the talk page, the person behind this IP and Harmanprtjhj who are clearly only interested in whitewashing this page are not even responding to the talk page concerns or engaging in a fruitful conversation. WP:LABEL (which is a guideline and not a policy) doesn't really ban the use of the word terrorist, but these users believe it does and are actively enforcing this imaginary ban. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Can we continue discussion on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Deletion_of_reliable_content_from_Indian_state_articles Many states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra, Telangana are written with more than one region. For example Telangana is mentioned as centre-south part. So in the same way why cannot we write for Maharashtra south, centre and west? Many sources are writing it is also stretching in south and centre regions in India. Can we continue the discussion on that page? BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BelgaumGoan: I have already said what I wanted to regarding that there and don't want to get involved in the dispute further. Maybe other editors can help, hope you understand. Gotitbro (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: I added talk here because I think you were original person who changed those edits and argued for it. So who else can I discuss with? Do you think it is wrong to add central and southern, to describe it in more detail? BelgaumGoan (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BelgaumGoan: From what I can see in the discussion on the discussion board, the general opinion seems to be to leave the regions as they were before the recent edits, i.e., not including multiple regions in the lead like in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. So I would recommend not changing the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Then why are multiple regions mentioned for all South states? Telangana was called centre south, Karnataka and Kerala is called south west and Andhra Pradesh is south east. None of them are mentioned by Britannica definition. I am wondering why that double standard?? BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santu Mukhopadhyay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	home unreliable source to edits
	You do not provide substantial or reliable source to confirm that Naya Raipur/atal nagar which is scarcely populated and not dignified as a city by the state government, would be future capital wiki123 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You remove a reliable source then say there is none. Please stop this edit warring. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi. Me again.) You seem to be using the same edit summary, "rvt vand by IP", over and over again, in cases where that doesn't seem to adequately describe your changes. For example, how can this change possibly be considered reverting vandalism? In several other cases that I checked, I could not determine which edit(s) you were "reverting". So, for the benefit of other editors, could you please clearly specify which change(s) from the past you are undoing when you use (a form of) the word "revert" (unless you are undoing the last change(s) prior to yours, in which case that should be sufficiently clear to everyone)? This can be done by specifying a name and date of an edit, a revision number, or by using the semi-automated "undo" feature. And please try not to describe innocuous changes as "vandalism". Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcljr: Sorry, I meant to link the edits I was reverting in the edit summary but somehow forgot to do so. I came across many disruptive edits from the same IP range (2601:CB:8200.* / 2601:CB:*) Pakistani POVPUSHING on multiple articles. It is most likely the same user and had been warned on multiple IPs and even blocked on one too. I will make sure to clearly mark the edits I am reverting in the future. Gotitbro (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro. I have noticed that you have previously taken an interest in the Dawn Media Group Wikipedia page. I would like to point out that the page has quite a lot of outdated/ false information on it. Probably the most egregious error is in the page's introduction section, something that I have already pointed out on the talk page:

The second paragraph of the introduction states, "The group is headed by the Pakistani media mogul Hameed Haroon, its current CEO. His son, Masood Hameed Haroon, was found dead in his car by the police in Karachi in 2015." This is erroneous on two counts:

1) The person found dead by police in Karachi in 2015 was Masood Hamid (not Masood Hameed Haroon, as the article states).

2) Masood Hamid was a Director at the Dawn Media Group at the time of his death, but he was not related to the CEO, Hameed Haroon. The article states that he was Hameed Haroon's son, which is false.

More information on the demise of Masood Hamid, and his role in the Dawn Media Group, can be found here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1176553

I would be grateful if this could be corrected. It has been online for at least six months and is a demonstrable falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.104.235 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No Nazis is the guidance you were after. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nepali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. 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 16:44, 23 October 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I realize I should have been more cognizant of my own edit warring while reporting an IP for it. I will make sure to not abuse the revert in the future like this. I also did not realize I violated 3RR as I thought it was violated when you made "more" than three reverts. I will take note of this as well. I do not plan to engage in any edit wars on the problematic article. Please consider my unblock request as it is the first transgression I have made and do not want to do this again.Gotitbro (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, this block has now expired. stwalkerster (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (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.

I count four reverts: one, two, three, four. El_C 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I absolutely did not realize that and do not want to engage as such further. Please do consider the rest of what I've written in the unblock request as well. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking to disambiguation pages. The first couple of times you did it could be regarded as understandable mistakes, but after the number of times you have received notifications about it, continuing to do the same is serious carelessness. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: I am not sure I understand. I don't remember leaving any disamb links any time soon. Maybe you mistook me for someone else. Gotitbro (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a notification like User talk:Gotitbro#Disambiguation link notification for October 6, go back and check your edit - it means you have a wikilink to a disambiguation page. Even if it's unintentional (reverting a problematic edit), you should still fix it. It may be easier if you change your preferences. Lessee... In preferences, under "gadgets" down the page to "Appearance", about 5th from the bottom of that section, you can see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Check that, then go back to the Assam page and see the orange link to Nepali that shows up under the Assam#Education section. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript - it's been fixed since, but it shows up when looking at the diff. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: Oh, I see thanks for that. Not sure why I would need to be specifically objected about that @JBW: though, I am only human and oversight can occur. Most of the times I have fixed the disamb links (after being notified) anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be correcting disambiguation links "after being notified": you should not create disambiguation links in the first place. Notifications about disambiguation links are mainly for new editors who don't yet know about them, but you have received bot notifications about them 10 times, beginning in May 2018, so you clearly know about them. It's perfectly simple: never add a link to an article unless you know what you are linking to, and if you know it's a disambiguation page then don't link to it. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't realize the function of the notifications, thanks for letting me know. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realise I might not have been explicit enough. Articles about personal names (which frequently list people with the name) are not disambiguation pages, but anthroponymy pages (the corresponding wikiproject is WP:APO). Anthroponymy pages serve a different set of purposes and follow different style guidelines compared with dab pages. – Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: As I said the scripts are not doing any good on the name list page. While WP:INDICSCRIPTS policy may not exactly apple to such a page, the point about script cluttering,which eventually happens, stands. Hence, the I see it best to rmeove the scripts since other pages on Indian names don't have them as well. Gotitbro (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about topics associated with a language other than English typically have the name of that topic in the relevant languages, see MOS:FORLANG. This is especially relevant for anthroponymy articles, as these are primarily articles about words, so it's rather odd to hear that including the spellings of those words "does not do any good". Any name article that's not just a single sentence will typically have them (see a random sample: Irina, Ahmed, Sunil). And frankly, for all those years, this is the first time I'm seeing someone object to their use. If you still disagree with their inclusion, I urge you to propose your view at WT:APO. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I was just acting in good faith and removing the scripts which I believed were unnecessary as the name isn't specific to the scripts/languages added (moving us into script cluttering, see point above) and I still don't see their purpose, the better to thing to do would be just add a pronunciation or transliteration. Gotitbro (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a transliteration there, but you removed that as well. Yes, Devanagari isn't the only script that is relevant to the name, but it's the de facto standard for names of Sanskrit origin, and it's the most widespread of Indic scripts, and so should be comprehensible to a large segment of wikipedia's audience (which probably includes a lot of people who aren't familiar with the transliteration schemes in use). 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs)

@Uanfala: I have tried to better use the script for Sanskrit, see edit. You are right about the Sanskrit Devanagari script use, but then the use should be made explicit, the problem arises when specific modern languages are added, Hindi/Urdu etc. (leading to the script cluttering issue). Gotitbro (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gotitbro, I am here to discuss you about the revert you made in Kalapani territory. In the revert you made is baised ehich is against wikipedia's policy. So, before doing edit war discuss about it in the talk page.Rawal Bishal (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawal Bishal: Please do the relevant WP policies, such as WP:POVPUSH before making such egregious comments on User Talk pages. The version I restored was a stable you reverted it without any relevant reason reading POV material to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   You are welcome to edit in this article but before doing anything you should have references and evidences and you should write the reason why you did it. If you are doing a big edit then describe it in the talk page.Rawal Bishal (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know what is and isn't allowed on Wikipedia, please go read the WP:Five Pillars and specifically WP:NEUTRALITY. Also, I have not added anything to the article I have only reverted WP:POV edits made by you. Gotitbro (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, the changes you made onHira Devi Waiba and Bipul Chettri is not valid. You have removed category 'Nepalese Folk singer' and everything relating to 'Nepali' and 'Nepalese'. Let me make you aware that there are 2,926,168 Nepali people (Indian Nepali citizens) living and citizens of sovereign India and this populous is referred to as 'Nepalese' too. 'Nepali' 'Nepalese' is not just a citizen of the country Nepal. It is also a language and prefix to other expressions i.e. Nepali song, Nepali movie, Neplai clothes, Nepali food etc. Not all of these have to originate from the country Nepal. To seal the argument further it is not necessary anyone singing an English song has to be from England. One can sing an English song can be categorized as 'English language singer'. Thanks. Tabletop123 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123: The categories you are mentioning are for the citizens/nationals of Nepal just because someone speaks the Nepali language does not make them a Nepali/Nepalese citizen. There are other relevant categories for that, like Category:Nepali-language singers, Category:Nepali-language poets, you should use them rather than the ones for Nepali citizens. Gotitbro (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian Sign Language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How Tf is stating the ethnicity of the people who died vandalism. That crowd was more than 95% Punjabi. What justification is there for calling them Indian? Explain it to me. AnonymousFixer (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonymousFixer: No WP:RS on the subject lists the dead ethnically, you are just WP:POVPUSHING here. Moreover, your edit summaries which state the term Indian as derogatory is simply vandalism. And keep your language WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia. Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Great Gama. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kthxbay (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kthxbay: Do you even check what you're reverting? I was clearly undoing vandalism by an IP who added "Indian" to the lead. Do not blindly revert anything and then post non-sensical warning templates on user talk pages. Gotitbro (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Oh I just checked. Regret this.Kthxbay (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hi, I see that you just reverted an edit from back May in Samosa, but I don't understand why. You didn't leave an edit summary. The edit looks ok to me, it doesn't look like vandalism. Could you please explain the problem? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: Just reverting disruptive edits by a block evading IP hopper. The cat isn't correct as well the cuisine is not specific or even inherent to the Muhajir community of Pakistan (migrants from India at the time of partition). Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I, too, am confused about your revert to Grid plan. The info looks well-sourced (haven't checked when it was added, but there have been quite a few edits since). There was some interference in that section by 167.217.31.60 (now blocked), but that was reverted soon afterwards. Can you please ping me with a reply to this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: The original para referred to the ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Mohenjo-daro, Harappa) which was later edited to insert cities of an entirely different region and quite later time period [which should not have been on the top of the History section at all]. This was then laced over by a Pakistani POV [unneeded mention of Pakistan, then the addition of the modern city of Islamabad to the section]. Hence, I removed it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>haven't checked when it was added

I linked the original POV edit by the IP in my edit summary by the way. Gotitbro (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the link to the original edit. There does seem to be something worth retaining there though, without mentioning Pakistan and with a decent citation. I might just restore that bit. Thanks for getting back to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising sourced information the excuse of blocked users only works for pov or vandalised content your clearly upset with Pakistan being mentioned in ancient terms in distillation but this is not India its Wikipedia where sources matter not blind nationalism which you maybe used to. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: We are supposed to work with each other but if you make personal attacks and allegations I obviously would not be able to work with you. Firstly you do not make personal remarks on users as you clearly did above (read WP:PERSONALATTACKS). Secondly, I undid that edit as it was made by a problematic IP who was blocked, if you had politely explained that the particular edit is fine I most likely would not have reverted you but your personal attacks made me think that your edits were in WP:BADFAITH. Lastly my edit summaries are "generic" because that's what they are supposed to be [simple and straightforward] (see WP:EDIT SUMMARY) and when I'm reverting problematic editors I clearly link to their edits (most of the edits where you have made allegations against me are reverts to such editors).

This is what happened in the Ladakh article where the Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan was ridiculously added to places which have no disputes by an IP (you even quite incorrectly reverted me and restored the vandalism by the IP in some of these). I have myself re-added the category to Ladakh (see discussion below). Regarding the distillation article I have no intention of further engaging there, if your conduct was polite I wouldn't have reverted you in the first place. And with regards to the Nagaland article you are reinserting to the lead an edit by a user who mass added lines to UNPO [its not the UN], an organization which has no bearing, these lines were also added to Sindh and Balochistan and were also rightly removed. I hope you an see why this isn't an acceptable line in the lead or anywhere in such articles.

And what you were/are doing following my edits everywhere and without heed reverting them constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING, i.e. harassment of users. If you tone down your personal attacks and rhetoric and stop hounding me then maybe we can get somewhere otherwise this is impossible. Gotitbro (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a bit confused maybe but the entire wolrd recognises Jammu and Kashmir disputed territory but you deleted the category stating disputed by Pakistan why is that? Then you moan about others adding categories you did the same to Ladakh. I will make sure experianced editors are made aware of your blatantly biased editing regarding Pakistan 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: What edit are you edit even talking about, point me to it rather than making baseless threats about reporting me. Your personal attacks on me don't already put you in a great place at all. Gotitbro (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jammu and Kashmir article pretending you dont remember ? You removed the category which states its Pakistans territorial disputes 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough, IP. Either cite the diff or go do something else. El_C 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: I am waiting for the specific edit. Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] and [[3]] clearly pov pushing he also removes any mention of South Asia as in India that term is regarded as Anti national. Please explain your above edits now. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: I was just reverting edits by a vandal IP have not made further edits after that same with my other edits (all of which link to the edit I am undoing). And stop projecting your biases on me if you continue with your labels and personal attacks, I will have to report you. Gotitbro (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you did make those edits and claied you didnt? Your excuse or removing pov etc makes no sense on most of your edits which vandal ip was it? That category has been there for a long time but you deleted it based on fictious vandal ip claims this is the bias I am talking about. Gilgit Baltistan has this category and so should Jammu and Kashmir along with Ladakh. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vendetta against me I have clearly linked the original edit made by the vandal IP in my edit summary, the same vandal IP whose nonsensical edits you restored in some of your edits without any reason. Ofcourse I don't remember every I made escpecially regarding vandalisms. Anyway I am not going to continue with these discussion anymore as you clearly have something to take out against me and I want nothing of that. Gotitbro (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you personally just your pov edits on certain articles the diffs I provided demonstrate that explicitly again the vandalism excuse means nothing as Gilgit-Baltistan also has a catgeory mentioning Indian territorial disputes. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, Gotitbro is not a 'nationalist' editor. He is a perfectly fine editor. This is possibly some misunderstanding.

Gotitbro, let us agree that all the top-level political units will get listed as "disputes" of both the countries. That would include Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh, but not Aksai Chin because it is not clear if Pakistan claims Aksai Chin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I only made that edit on Ladakh as I was just reverting vandalisms by an IP, who BTW was adding "Territorial disputes of Pakistan" to places such as Delhi and what not. This is what prompted me to undo the edit than anything else. Regarding the second edit linked by @31.205.18.37: that was for a category page and I don't think we have added territorial dispute cats to any of them which wouldn't make sense anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is saying, Gilgit-Baltistan is listed in Category:Territorial disputes of India. Why isn't Ladakh being listed in Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan? I am saying we should list it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the second diff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Done. As I said the only reason I removed it was was while reverting mass vandalism by an IP. Gotitbro (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, please see the article on the British Raj, Princely states were not considered apart of British India. Please revert your edits Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: Wikipedia articles are not a source and I've already told you that princely states are considered a part of British India on Wikipedia. You are editing against consensus and have already been notified about ARBIPA sanctions on India/Pakistan articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just said wikipedia articles are not a source... The claim on the wikipedia article is sourced. Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: As I've that article does not matter nor what the sources therein say. We treat princely states as part of British India on Wikipedia and that is reflected in infoboxes. Your removals have no WP:CONSENSUS and you shouldn't proceed further as such. Gotitbro (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Princely states were associated with British India, that's for sure, but that doesn't make them legally or historically apart of it. If princely states are apart of British India as per Wikipedia consensus, then why are you changing people's places of birth to "British India," entirely. Why not leave it as "Srinagar, Kashmir" etc. Point is, consensus doesn't change facts backed up with sources, and can be argued and changed. Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: That is vague and what your doing is too. Princely states did not exist independently and that is what's shown not just for the British Empire but other states that existed under various previous empires (Mughal's etc.) in infoboxes. Your facts are your POV and clearly aren't going consensus that has existed for long. Gotitbro (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Princely states were semi independent, their capital was not Delhi, like British India's was, they did not use the same currency or postal service etc. And by definition as mentioned on the British Raj page, were not legally considered apart of British India Hammad.511234 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gotitbro: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

Hi, probably you need to see this, seems like an old POV pusher. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Gotitbro,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

With due respect sir/madam, I would love to know the reason for this change on this particular page. The fact regarding her name has been clear from a much longer time. The addition of the word "Bux" is actually wrong. Unmarried Muslim women, either use Bano or Banu and not their father's surname. They usually use the surname of their husband after their marriage. I have been extensively editing her page from more than two years and have looked on for various sources. I would request you to look into this matter at the earliest. [[[User:Vrishchik|Vrishchik]] (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)][reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sudhir (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For rooting out vandalism and being awesome at that . Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"no red links on disamb pages " - sorry, that is not true as a general rule. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages #Red_links. Red links are useful, if there is a chance that an article will be written. In the disambiguation category, it is helpful to sort the lemma names. Actually, there are two Made in China films from 2019, one French and one Indian one. --Gunnar (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abdullah Hussain (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I connected with User:BD2412, but you might be familiar with these topics as well. On Sorshe Ilish, this jingoistic editor for Bangladesh again changed the place of origin to Bangladesh, instead of Bengal. This was even stated by admin User:Huon here in talk. It is clearly a Bengali dish, not just Bangladeshi, however, this user Za-ari-masen on multiple article is changing Bengali dishes to Bangladeshi dishes. Others are Chomchom, Bakarkhani, as well as articles such as Kazi Nazrul Islam and Gauḍa (city), which are not justified. These reversals are just Bangladeshi jingoism by this user. All these are shared by both Bangladesh and India, not solely Bangladesh. As noted on the talk page, but the user Za-ari-masen comes back and changes it back to Bangladesh only, and removes all reference to India or even Pakistan. On Bakarkhani, the main source^[1] mentions Bengal, Awadh and Kashmir as sources for the dish, instead the user Za-ari-masen put Bangladesh as the sole origin of the dish, which is not true. Please help from preventing this type of jingoism in Wikipedia on multiple articles. (2600:1001:B003:5C82:61D3:209D:CA6E:5364 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I also suspect these IPs which they use as proxy to battle also belongs to user Za-ari-masen, same location: this, this, and this. All are similar editing styles, they use the IPs to battle, later come in with the user ID to play a neutral spectator to get their way. (2600:1001:B003:5C82:61D3:209D:CA6E:5364 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bakarkhani; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gotitbro reported by User:Za-ari-masen (Result: ). Thank you. Za-ari-masen (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. 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 04:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I realize I should not have engaged in edit warring and engaged in discussion with other users. It was not my intention to edit war and I had not realized violating 3RR. I do not wish to engage in this topic area at all. If you want I'll proceed under a topic ban but please let me engage in other areas of the wiki. Thank you.

Accept reason:

You are only partially blocked. El_C 05:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Just wanted to reiterate my apology. I made you run around for naught and that's on me. Not my best moment. I appreciate your patience throughout this. Best, El_C 06:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I provided my findings on Bakarkhani, please see the sources, the user Za-ari-masen has been falsifying everything. Times of India on Bakarkhani nor Banglapedia on Bakarkhani says nothing on the origin being Dhaka or Bangladesh or East Bengal. I explained here on Talk:Bakarkhani. (96.240.28.30 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Can you keep an eye of Pala empire, this user is adding modern Bangladeshi architecture and modern Sculpture of Bangladesh to an ancient article like Pala empire. Modern nation state or Bangladesh did not exist then. These additions can be seen here. I reversed it. Pinging Fylindfotberserk to also request to keep an eye out. 2600:1001:B010:331C:D1E3:1DF8:F527:BD54 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you think this IP is same as User:Khondoker Jobair and User:Great Hero32? I checked their editing history, both IPs and those accounts, same type of poor English and grammar as well as editing articles like Sandesh (confectionery) (where I found the connection), chomchom, and an obscure article like Muktagachhar monda. 2600:1001:B008:E2ED:3048:E150:7088:8D8D (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which IP's edit you are undoing? I was undoing a pile of changes (and re-changes) from many IPs in the past month that replaced sourced content with citation-needed content. So I took it back to what seems to have been stable for many months prior to that. Are you just concerned about the wording of the first sentence? DMacks (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I actually linked the IP edit in my edit summary. Here is the diff for the IP. Yes, I was reverting the lead change by IP. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...that link wasn't distinctly colored enough on my crappy monitor, sorry for overlooking! I re/undid all the number changes "back to stable" (as my previous edit did) but retained your change to that lede sentence. DMacks (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GotitBro. I'm updating the Reporters Without Borders page to more accurately reflect their current work. Thanks for your interest - and for noting some unexplained revisions. I assure you they are all legitimate, and I will be adding fuller explanations as I go on, but I may need to undo your reversion - or could you possibly do that yourself? Thank you! --89up (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salman Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malakand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this edit. Someone re added it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: this edit, Box Office India is not a good source for film budgets, because they include print and advertising costs into their figures, which is not done in any other film industry. Budget comprises the cost to produce the film, not to market it. So it should be avoided, and flagged as in need of updating. Also "passing mention" would not typically be a valid justification for removing a published figure, and in most cases if multiple sites have different opinions, we should present the content in the form of a range, not decide on our own what the "Truth" with a capital T is. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I actually knew that and deliberately used the BOI source because if that is indicating a lower budget (despite mktng, promo costs) than a passing mention in India Today, then the cost is definitely not 100 cr. I have tagged the source, should have done that earlier. Hope someone can find a better source for the exact budget. Gotitbro (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. There is a third possibility: That India Today is correct, and that BOI's figure is actually low for some other reason. It wouldn't be awful to present both figures as a range, then include an embedded note that explains the discrepancy, the the effect of Box Office India includes estimated print and advertising costs into its budget estimates, whereas most authorities globally consider budget to be the straight cost of producing the film. So figures by BOI and India Today could be higher than the actual production budget. However, I'll let you decide whether that should be done or not. I'm yielding on the matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I would've done that but the India Today source is not good, some source which discusses the budget a bit would've been better. Gotitbro (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The community has not deemed India Today to be a problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I know, I meant that particular article does not appear good enough to cite as it barely mentions the budget in passing. Gotitbro (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think the Kannada script is required besides the Sanskrit one in Mahaganapati article? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, local scripts are not acceptable even on religious articles in India. The Devanagari script [being the standard] for Sanskrit and its ((IAST)) transliteration are used. Gotitbro (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Forgot to ping. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Otello Corp logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, G5 only applies to articles created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor as per WP:CSD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I clearly *know nothing. But throwing ornamental words at me is not going to support your argument . Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you propose caste articles for deletion due to notability, as you did at Bharat clan, you refer to WP:CASTE, which is a general sanctions subpage. It's not exactly clear why you refer there when it contains no notability-related information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing the error out, I have mentioned the relevant guidelines in the PROD now. I probably cited WP:CASTE as too many irrelevant/non-existent caste groups have been created/POVPUSHED that fall under the sanctions, sorry for the oversight. Gotitbro (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: forgot to ping. Gotitbro (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sitush/CasteSources has useful information about caste-related sources, though not notability. Point there instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you removed Category:Proposed countries. He was carrying thousands of copies of a Provisional constitution (John Brown). deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: Oh, I didn't appear to find this while going through the article. Though the category would be more appropriate for the article you have linked than in the bio of John Brown. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does an image venerating Lord Vishnu in Sanskrit language have to do with the Pali Language article ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit and Pali comparisons are replete in scholarly sources which the image was specifically created to illustrate. Your replacement with a singular script is unbecoming. Gotitbro (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not keep an image of Tamil or Kannada inscriptions of Sanskrit in the Sanskrit article ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodhiupasaka: I have already explained the same thing to you repeatedly and am not going to do it again, Devanagari is the standard script for Sanskrit with Latin for Pali. If you continue your disruptive editing by adding Sinhala script to Pali pages and removing any and all mentions of Sanskrit from related pages you are going to be taken to WP:ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you allow Sanskrit transliteration to persist for the Pali equivalent term in the Sangha article. Just check right now on the infobox of the article. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Pali transliteration, you clearly no nothing about Sanskrit and Pali transliterations/etymologies, so please do not disrupt multiple articles with senseless diatribes. WP:COMPETENCE is required, go read the relevant Wikipedia policies and do not waste the time of multiple experienced users. Gotitbro (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Agni Purana,Bhagavata Purana,Brahma Purana,Garuda Purana,Linga Purana,Matsya Purana,Naradiya Purana,Padma Purana,Shiva Purana,Skanda Purana,Varaha Purana,Kalki Purana's kalki is mention as Vishnu avatar why you remove this?--Ritij Paudel (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the most relevant texts should be mentioned rather than a myriad sideline ones. Gotitbro (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to people that Buddhism founder, Gautama Buddha is Vishnu avatar you have to mention it also. --Ritij Paudel (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:CITE for Sage Sanskriti is son of Sakti Maharsi. And Why you delete his story, and his family detail.--Ritij Paudel (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Ritij Paudel (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritij Paudel: Do not cite policies which you yourself have not read. You are adding clearly WP:POVPUSH poorly sourced material to articles despite being warned by multiple users. Gotitbro (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source that said Sage Sanskriti is son of Sakti Maharsi. Infact, the sage Sanskriti, do not have any source.And the story I written is taken from wikipedia Kalmashapada--Ritij Paudel (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In article it is written Sakti Maharsi is father of Rishi Parashara ji, and with Satyavati, he fathered son Vyas.--Ritij Paudel (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gotitbro. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shor Sharaba, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Can you please clarify that? The page was clearly created by a sockpuppet: User:User:Abbas45Abdul. Gotitbro (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The master, Sunny Saab was not blocked at the time of the creation, and they aren't blocked now, they only got a week. Seems vindictive to delete the contributions of a user who isn't blocked, even if they were socking at some point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted me here, without explaining why and although there was absolutely nothing wrong with my edits. Please kindly do not revert users on sight, especially when their edits were useful. And, with all due respect, it would be much appreciated if you use edit summaries and explain your reversions, per WP:REVEXP. Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AshMusique: Sorry for that. Was reverting a disruptive IP in multiple articles and your edits got caught in that. Gotitbro (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your unexplained revert here. I added citation needed and contradict-inline tags since the Fashion One article says - Fashion One is a 24-hour New York City-based television network...The Fashion One Channel was officially launched in New York City on April 8, 2010. Source for claim in Bigfoot Entertainment article that says Hong Kong can not be verified due to permanent dead link. It can't be both cities, unless you can find a source that clarifies your reasoning for the reversion. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2006 Lebanon War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hezbollah–Israel conflict (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brubach. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Brubach until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to a consensus on the article talk page before inserting WP:ETHNICITY into her lead sentence. Please do not edit war over this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a proposal here to split part of the article Charding Nullah into a new article called Demchok dispute. You previously suggested such a splitting proposal, so I am notifying you now per WP:PROSPLIT. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not sure if it is actually Sami, but an IP is adding patent nonsense to Hindustani related articles, this time even spreading their POV to Braj Bhasa and Awadhi language. It's the typical whack-a-mole game, but their last edits are too crazy even for Sami standards. –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: This is typical sami stuff. Blatant Urdu POVPUSH, poor English, incessant edits (without undos). If you have edits just be sure that any IP editing from Karachi doing blatant Urdu POV is most likely him. Also see the IP ranges listed at the WP:LTA/SAMI page. Gotitbro (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I would like to clarify that sami's edits are not limited to Hindustani but the whole gamut of Indo-Aryan langs specifically Central Indo-Aryan languages and anything to do with Urdu, in the linguistic arena at least. He also targets India-Pakistan related articles (conflicts, disputes etc.) and any television channel/series/film aired in Pakistan (Pakistani, Turkish, Indian etc.); all of these with a Pakistani/Urdu POVPUSH. It's easy to identify his edits once you are familiar with the pattern, i.e., Urdu/Pakistan POVPUSH, rarely reverts (undos) but reverts by reinserting (editing) his previous edits [so as not to notify users], canvases users whose edits he think serve his POVPUSH, uses irregular (poor) English and blatantly fakes identities (Indian, Thai and what not) to get his edits past users and most of the IPs used belong to PTCL and geolocate to Karachi. I also recommend that you add any IP you suspect (whose range isn't already there) to the LTA page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi. Gotitbro (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the relevant pages are semi-PPed for three months now, but I wonder how many other pages we will have to add then. As it seems, the only way to stop this guy is community alertness; talking about alert fellow editors: do you now what happened to our friend User:Fylindfotberserk? He hasn't edited for 7 weeks now, and his absence leaves a noticeable void. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: No idea but these are COVID-19 times and he talked about the large spike in vandalisms since the virus hit taking a toll on him; perhaps its related to that. @Uanfala: is also familiar with sami, the sockpuppeteer also frequently targets User:Fowler&fowler with requests et all (such as here) since he seems to have taken a liking to some of Fowler's edits on Urdu related articles. Editors need to be aware that they are dealing with a chronic LTA who sees this as nothing more than a game of whack-a-mole as long as he can get some of edits past by being as disruptive as possible. Gotitbro (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one?[4] Categories, Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua, Hindustani...I think it's a duck. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Most definitely him, have filed an SPI, please leave your comments there. It seems like the sockmaster has been more proactive ever since the pandemic and on pages which have lost protection, he also has gotten some new IP provider to continue his disruptions. Can you ask for page protections on pages which have had severe disruptions such as the recent Hindi-Urdu ones? And also ask for IP range blocks whenever you see a large amount of disruption rom them. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal § Nepalese

I noticed that you reverted my edits at Manisha Koirala. In that edit, I changed the word Neplaese to Nepali. I believe it should be Nepali. You said Nepalese is the standard term on enwiki, can you direct me to a discussion that led to this change (as being the standard term).

Prakash Sharan Mahat, former minister for foreign affairs of Nepal once said People who live in Nepal, we call them Nepali ... Let us start saying Nepali in English as well, instead of saying Nepalese [5] Here are few sources [6] Martin Chautari also uses Nepali [7] Even NRN USA uses Nepali. [8] [9] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: "Nepali" is a recent trend affected by the Indo-Aryan demonym usage for Nepal (Nepali is more generally used for the language in English). Nepalese has been the standard adjective/demonym in English and on this Wikipedia since the beginning as is evident by the categories on the page itself. And I don't see a reason why this or any other page should be an exception to that. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. Even the The Kathmandu Post has been using Nepali for decades. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: This the current standard adjective form for Nepal here on enwiki and its precedent is evident by the myriad cats and titles related to it. You can disagree but the consensus for your change is not there. Gotitbro (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! there might "not" be consensus. Let's talk about Koirala. The Media usage: Republica Nepali actress Manisha Koirala [10], The Rising Nepal Manisha Koirala is getting huge support from Nepali people, A book students in Indore disrupted the screening of a movie by the Nepali Bollywood actress Manisha Koirala [11] Outlook Manisha will live in Nepal and will mostly devote time to Nepali films.

Using Google: If you search for Manisha Koirala "Nepali actress", it bring 189,000 results. Manisha Koirala "Nepalese actress" brings 5,600 results. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, leads use standard terminology and this article is not an exception to that; WP:GOOGLEHITS hardly matter here. Gotitbro (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different matter. This is not about AfD. The numbers matter because it shows that Nepali is widely used. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: Even the Wikipedia article about the people refers to them as "Nepalis" not Nepalese. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically didn't refer to that article as it has been the subject of multiple edit wars, disputes and moves. Changing of a demonym/adjective would require a sitewide consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Bhagat, Usedtobecool, Biplab Anand, Coolboi567, Learnerktm: Your thoughts? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I really don't think my userpage is an appropriate venue for this discussion. A category rename request/discussion for Nepal related cats at WP:CFD and a discussion for titles related to Nepal (both of which use Nepalese) at Talk:Nepal or a similar forum that involves more users is definitely better. Would lastly like to add that I was only following precedent and the standard form here in my revert and do not have a strong opinion either way. Nepali/Nepalese are used interchangebaly, the latter more so in international pubs and obviously here on the enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Appu Ghar - Gurgaon logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you addition on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#biofamous.com. Seeing his reply (I assume there is only one guy working there), you have created some panic. Look likes their revenue plan is falling apart when blocked for spamming. Way to go! And thanks for noticing it! The Banner talk 12:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Yeah it was very sneaky, the spam links were added as if genuine refs. I wouldn't even have noticed the spam refs if the user didn't become active again after nearly two years. And its funny that the spammer is now acting as his own employer and saying that Wikipedia referenced from his website when the opposite is true. Hope the site is blocked here soon. Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indian Astronomical Observatory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paro Anand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, why are you removing language descriptions en masse from articles?[12][13][14][15]? It seems to me that identifying a film's native language is a pretty fundamental aspect to answering the Five Ws, especially for films from a nation where language cannot be assumed. If I'm missing someting, please fill me in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I was reverting the edits of a user who had added lang descriptors to leads simultaneously without any checks. Such as where the language is ambiguous Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani (Sholay, Mother India) it is better kept off the lead or where the language is mentioned multiple times in the lead (Devdas) or where there are multiple languages in a film (Guzaarish, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna) etc. I assumed the GA/FA versions had gone through enough copyedits/checks to be the better ledes so I restored them where the article was under such a label. In Veer-Zaara, multiple languages were listed at different databases (such as here) so I thought it best to restore the GA lede. I might have gone overboard with reverting all additions by the user to GAs/FAs. Gotitbro (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, I doubt if there's any ambiguity with regard to Jab Tak Hai Jaan, Angneepath, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Andhadhun, Om Shanti Om, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, What's Your Raashee?, and Dil Dhadakne Do. Besides I'm also unaware of policy which forbids improving GA and FAs.

In fact, if you see FA versions of Mother India and Sholay, they describe the film as "1957 Hindi epic melodrama film" and "1975 action-adventure Hindi film" respectively. It was indeed poorly presented if you ask me. Reasons being:

1. Lead fails to describe one of the nationality of the film, which is one of the crucial parameters. In the absence of compound adjective "-language", its also unclear what Hindi is.
2. In Sholay, Hindi was not blue-linked; while in Mother India, Hindi was pipe-linked to Bollywood.

If we were to "restore them where the article was under such a label" as you've suggested, its as good as downgrading the article.

Even if the language is ambiguous at times, we should ponder over how to logically present the information, instead of simply evading it.

If a user who made these edits is singularly identified, it would have been advisable to seek clarification on the article's talk page or the user's talk page or at least intimate them before going for mass reverts. In any case, I don't mind having a discussion in it. Thanks and Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: Sorry for not involving you here. I think we should avoid language in the lead where there are multiple langs listed or specially where the lang is ambiguous, the infobox suffices, (such as where the films are not explicitly filmed/released in Hindustani and are released in Hindi [avoiding the whole Hindi-Urdu controversy in the lead is best here]), feel free to revert my edits where these conflicts do not occur (where I might have went overboard). Gotitbro (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. At this point, I have nothing to say on Hindi-Urdu films because its inconclusively discussed a zillion times already but I believe its important to indicate the primary language in the lead. Cyphoidbomb may help us in pointing out if there's any past consensus on this.

Regarding Guzaarish, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and Veer-Zaara, its clear that main language is Hindi. We don't have to list every language used in the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: A solution for these films might be placing Bollywood in place of the language and adding a note (if necessary) saying something like "The Hindi-language film industry of the larger Indian cinema." Gotitbro (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think using colloquial language is desirable, besides we don't know for certain if the term "Bollywood" was used before 1970s. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is not desirable, especially because we write for a global audience and I would think that most people across the world who have heard of Bollywood think it describes all Indian films not just Hindi-language films. We would run into other challenges, because even fewer people would know what Tollywood is, and there are two Kollywoods (Tamil and Nepalese cinema). As I noted above, language is a fundamental aspect of a film's identification, except in nations where we can draw an assumption, like the UK or America. With regard to the argument that we leave it for the infobox, I strongly disagree with that. The infobox is supposed to summarise content found elsewhere in the article, which is also what the lede is supposed to do. Relying on the infobox to communicate information isn't how we normally write articles. If the language of origin is ambiguous or if there are multiple languages, then we wouldn't necessarily need the content in the intro sentence, (the general Wikipedia community doesn't like complex "...is an American-British-French film" structure, so I doubt they'd like complicated language descriptions), but it should be somewhere in the lede. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: It seemed to me that Hindustani in infobox was arrived as a compromise, that's why I was bold in adding Hindustani-language for Mother India and Sholay. Then again, we have both Hindi and Urdu in Mughal-e-Azam infobox, when template guideline states pretty clearly that the parameter is reserved for a single language, unless the film shot as multilingual. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have question, By "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films", is the guideline referring to films where there is an excessive use of more than one language? or a Multiple-language version. Obviously, Inglourious Basterds listing German, English and French is not the same as Saaho listing Hindi, Tamil and Telugu. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine months ago you were asked to stop linking to disambiguation pages, but you are still doing so. What is more, in several recent cases you have not even gone back to correct the mistake after being informed of it. Making the links and then correcting them when informed would be a very poor second best to not making the links in the first place, but making them and then leaving them after being warned is totally unacceptable. Blocking an editor from editing for such a simple thing is highly undesirable, but if after being asked to stop you continue to do the same thing, it may be that a block is the only way to get you to take notice. Please never post a wikilink to an article without checking what page it links to, and if it links to a disambiguation page then don't post the link. JBW (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad here, would avoid linking unless to an exact page. The visual editor is indeed better for such cases. Gotitbro (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting vandalism on Goat article.

ISL fan (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, I wonder if you can add Gunji, Uttarakhand to your watchlist if you don't have it already? Somebody moved it to Gunji, Sudurpashchim Pradesh this morning and, after I moved it back, it doesn't show on my watch list any more. It is the strangest thing. Anyway, while I try to figure out what is going on, somebody needs to monitor it. It is a standard target for POV-pushing. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Seems like a somewhat old account which has started making POVPUSH edits recently, have seen a few of these around since the flare up in May. Moving the page was highly disruptive by the user, should keep an eye on their contributions for further disruptions. Don't see much disruption in the last month except this one, ask for ECP if it continues. Gotitbro (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: That user has now created Gunji Village, Nepal seems ripe for a POVFORK CSD. Another warning to the user should suffice if they still continue ANI seems the way forward. Gotitbro (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have declined the WP:G5 speedy deletion nomination for Draft:Valmiki Ashram, as the draft was created on the 6th of August and the first block for this user was the 10th of August. Therefore, because this draft was created before the user was blocked, WP:G5 does not apply as, to quote from policy, A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

It may certainly be eligible for other criterion, but I'll leave it to you if you want to re-nominate under a different criterion. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Can you review the CSD, now that the account has been confirmed to be a sock of an older puppeteer. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro, the older account was only blocked today and G5 only applies to pages created when they are blocked. It is important to note that the creation date of accounts is not the date which is used for G5. The important date to bear in mind is the 10th of August which is when the first block for this sock master was given. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jane Austen in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gurpreet Singh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my edits. Your claims of historicity are baseless and irrelevant. The prophecies provide some background/context for Muslim conquests/rule in India. It seems like your reversion of my edits are politically motivated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krao212: The edits you have restored were added by a chronic Pakistan/Urdu POVPUSH sockpuppeteer (see WP:LTA/SAMI for details) and were reverted per WP:BANREVERT. And I see no reason for them to be in the article as explained in the edit summaries.

Rather than WP:EDITWARRING find WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk page for why the edits of a sock should be restored. And please do not through WP:ASPERSIONS on fellow editors as you did above unless you are looking for a ban. [Please go through the linked guidelines in this reply before proceeding]. Gotitbro (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my language, I overreacted. With regards to a sockpuppeter adding certain contents, how is that even relevant if the sources themselves are valid? Coz looking at the actual links, the translations of the Hadith are clearly referenced in the bottom left corner. Krao212 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With me at Akshay Kumar. The citations have been in place for a long time with attendant talk page discussion. Take it to the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: The citation date was clearly incorrect not sure why you reinstated that, it was a basic error. Placing the cite just beside the naturalization bit in the lead is problematic as the citation precedes his naturalization in 2011. I don't have a strong opinion on the placement of the cite but at least fix the date, please (that doesn't require any discussion). Gotitbro (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, add any of the inline tags: ^{[better source needed]}, ... or somesuch and leave a talk page post. What is the point of a post such as this with no edit summary? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I'm struggling to see your point here: when you come across a simple and obvious citation error you normally fix it straight away, not start a consultation. Do you have any objections to the new placement of the ref? – Uanfala (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make an edit without any explanation in an edit summary, especially not in a page in which random edits are being made and unmade by different people. In those instances an edit summary is not just a common courtesy, it is a must. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An old friend returns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work rooting out vandalism. This kitty will help you in your crusade .

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across ths guy before. LOL @ the logic in the edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you see that? Someone seems to be doing changes like this guy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Good catch. That appears to be a different IP vandal who was active between late-last year to early-this year, looks like he is back. Very disruptive and simply a vandal. I have started an ANI thread please add your comments there. Gotitbro (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening that ANI thread. I believe I came across this one before, in Iqbal's article probably. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and preventing vandalism. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you that interested in Meitei topics.The article you reverted now has no valid citating and what really do you know about Puya do you think it is some religious books based on myths..don't be biase give me a chance to prove my claim.If i can't provide reliable sources I won't create such thing..be neutral..You are really vandalising without any reason.Let the one who knows about it write with proper sources.Luwanglinux (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Please see what WP:VANDALISM actually is and learn to read edit summaries. When you removed projects/countries and comments from Talk pages, assigned arbitrary importance ratings to them that is known as vandalism. Your recent spate of edits is clearly ethnic WP:POVPUSH that you are trying to shove across Wikipedia. This is clearly unacceptable, just because you found some references online does not mean you will outstrip Wikipedia guidelines especially the WP:NPOV guideline which is one of its five pillars. Your repeated addition of Kangleipak (which is a non-neutral POV term, we go by WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia not what you think is right) and removal of countries from leads/Talk pages is clearly unacceptable. If you disruptively continue like this you are looking at nothing but blocks. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it too rude to say addition of Kangleipak is ethnic it is one of the oldest native name of the Princely state Manipur (princely state) ,give me a chance to explain.My edits were frequently reverted even if I wrote it with reliable sources,so I tried to protect my new articles from those vandalism..Sorry I wont delete country again but Give us room in India wikipedia too.. your reverting of Puya(Meitei texts) hurts Meitei community because it is not a religious book at all..or Puya neither is a single boook here is the proof.its about a puya Nongsamei Puya^[1]which write about Muslim settlement during King Khagemba,dude I have knowledge about Puya I am not relying on any source I found Luwanglinux (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Please read the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, we use the most common name in English for things on Wikipedia which in your case would be Manipur, Kangleipak is an obscure and contentious ethnic term so it is not acceptable. Do remember you are editing articles not for yourself but a global readership, so you articles need to conform to that. Removing countries from leads and Talk page projects is straight-up vandalism and will be reverted. Don't remove countries (India) or add POV ethnic terms (Kangleipak), add reliable sources (insidene.com/e-pao.net are not reliable) not your own research or "knowledge" (that is considered Original research hence not acceptable) and you are not going to face much issues. Gotitbro (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not delete country India again.will you undo the revert on Puya (Meitei texts) since you too now know that Puya is not a religious book, what I provided to you as source is definitely from a journal having international standard not epao.net.Luwanglinux (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Multiple sources consider it a religious text, so I don't see why that should be removed. You can add their generic nature in the article (through reliable sources) but completely removing their religious purpose is not done. Gotitbro (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh here comes to square 1 will you trust the unreliable one you said like epao.net or the authentic proof given,As many as 120 puyas were burned are they all religious book?..tagging puya as only religious book is a mockery to puya.of course there are many puyas even fake ones.(I mean not written by Maichou).There are religious puya too like the Sanamahi laihui I will never say such puya are historical book..What I want to prove is Puya is not a single or few books.Any written records by Maichou are termed as Puya even Cheitharol Kumbaba is a puya.Read puya history.Luwanglinux (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: What you did was remove an infobox and a navigation template (about religious works) from the article which is disruptive. Add your info but don't remove the templates, and the religious context should be clearly mentioned in the lead as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

like I told you tagging it as only religious book is a misleasding one.whoever created that page seems to know little about puya.Ok let that puya be the religious book or text but allow me to create a place for those puya books not the religious one.Luwanglinux (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Firstly, there can't be forks (duplicate articles) about the same thing. Secondly, you don't understand what I am saying. I am telling you to edit the text to make it include other types texts classified as 'puya' but just don't remove the infobox and other templates or add you own categories to it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are not getting my point.Firstly that article lead and infobox is totally misleading that article can be a sub page for puya in a sense but if it is considered main as religious book thats a misleading information.Puya is not only a religious book how can the info box be about religion only.Luwanglinux (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Add the ((Infobox manuscript)) above the religious infobox in that case but the don't remove the ((Religious books)) template or add your own categories. Gotitbro (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well a category for book,history is needed and I suggest it is better to move the religious context to a sub page.I will add Indian books.Puya as a main need to be under the category book or written records.Just allow me to create a Meetei Puya I will add the present religious book name in that too..Luwanglinux (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Then move the religious infobox to a section in the same article, please do not fork articles. Add additional categories (that already exist not the ones that you created) to the same article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Present Puya( Meitei texts) itself is very wrong from the title .Meitei text is Meetei Mayek not Puya I wonder what the creator thought at making that page.the page already has problem better to delete it i will write a better one you can review itLuwanglinux (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you correct the title to what it should be Meetei Puya(written records).I will definitely abide by rules to your suggestion while editing that pageLuwanglinux (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luwanglinux: Article title looks fine to me and is in line with how we dismabiguate pages on Wikipedia. The scripts (Mayek, which you are referring to) and texts are very different things and the English usage is correct here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the caption use in infobox is also wrong "Wakoklon hillel thillen salai Ama Ilon pukok" puya is a top research work of the maichous the writer maichou is Angom chaopa and it was mentioned in that book it was transcribed as it should not be lost during Pamheiba time and that book was verified by national archive of India in 1989 for the timing the book was written ^[2]Luwanglinux (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manipuri cuisine should have been neutral like that from the very beginning,It's not only for meitei dts the point I wanted to put in the first place now I won't disturb it.Luwanglinux (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the State of Manipur Kangleipak is very common..there is no national language for India. Manipuri language is one of the recognised official language of India,Kangleipak is native name there is no doubt in mentioning a naive name ,be neutral like you always said.stop removing context with proper resourceLuwanglinux (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Send Diwali wishings by adding ((subst:Happy Diwali)) to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

On 18 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Soumitra Chatterjee, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Gotitbro, could you list which specific articles you would like to redirect to that article? Most of the redirects are creations that are specifically Chuhra castes. If we discuss them here, it will prevent edit warring. Note that my redirect was made on the basis of the WP:CFORK discussion here and not a decision that was made unilaterally as your message implies. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, such as Himachal Pradesh, authored by K. S. Singh and ‎B. R. Sharma; and published by the Anthropological Survey of India, treat the terms synonymously, stating "CHUHRA / BALMIKI They are variously called as the Chuhra, Chura, Chuhre, Bhangi, Balmiki, Lalbegi, Watal, Mazhabi and Christian Chuhra or Musalli." Likewise, Caste, Marriage, and Inequality, authored by Pauline Kolenda and published by Rawat Publications, states "Freedom is that after more than forty years , the Balmiki / Chuhra sanitation workers of the DMC were serfs in debt..." I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 01:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I see, still the Valmiki/Balmiki name is not limited to the Chuhra and should redirect to the general topic on all castes known as such. These are the redirect changes I propose:

• Valmiki Caste → Valmiki caste
• Balmiki caste → Valmiki caste
• Balmiki → Valmiki (being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, only a spelling difference; already has a bad hatnote for other topics)

Thank you for your reply User:Gotitbro. I can accept these three changes, though I will edit the article on the Valmiki caste to make it clear that in the Punjab region, the Valmiki caste is largely known as Chuhra. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the links at wiki and looks like your edits are fine. I also checked some more off-wiki and I'd say the Valmiki caste article is indeed a POVFORK and should be redirect to Chuhra (most other castes known as Balmiki are marginal). Sorry for the trouble, I would say redirect even Valmiki caste to Chuhra and redirect Balmiki to Balmikism since that is what most links refer to. Gotitbro (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Anupam. Gotitbro (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotitbro, not a problem! That's why I thought I would ask you to discuss this with me first. I would recommend that you kindly comment here (so that others are aware of why we are endorsing the redirect) and then you can go ahead and create the redirect. I hope this helps and it was nice talking to you! Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 02:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotitbro, could you kindly revert your edit here? Balmikism is a sect of Hinduism and though many adherents are Chuhras, not all are; some members of the Chamar and Dhobi castes, as with other Dalits, identify their religious faith as such. In Lahore, the Balmiki Mandir is one of two functional Hindu temples in the city and is attended by Hindus of all castes. I have read on this topic widely (note that I am the one who added references to that article, which did not have any prior to my work there) and am thus suggesting this to you. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 02:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I will leave this to you then but can you at least mention the caste/castes and Punjab somewhere in that article? That is necessary for anyone looking into the the topic. Gotitbro (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotitbro, I will go ahead and do that. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I was looking at incoming links for Valmiki caste and I see that there are Valmiki/Balmiki in other places such as Rajasthan, Haryana and even in South India [Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh]. Are these the same as Chuhra? If yes, then we need to add this info to the article (including the lead) and rename it to Valmiki (caste)/similar (since the Chuhra term is specific to Punjab) or restore the POVFORK (which I wouldn't want to). Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotitbro, could you kindly share with me a few of the articles in which the castes are identified as Valmiki? We have extensive literature written about the Chuhra. I would need to find additional sources if we were to expand the article on the Valmiki caste; when I found that article, it hardly had any. Kindly let me know! With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: These are the ones I see, Rajasthan: List of Scheduled castes in Rajasthan, Yashica Dutt Delhi: List of Scheduled Castes in Delhi, Haryana: Mirchpur, Dayachand Mayna Andhra Pradesh: Marur, Gaddalakonda Ganesh Karnataka: Ramesh Jarkiholi. There are other articles linked to the caste about Uttar Pradesh but that is mentioned in the Chuhra lead. I am guessing that it is the same caste in North India (Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan) but I am not sure about South India. The article I think needs a rename anyhow.

I also moved this to the body, names/info specific to sects/castes should not generally be there in the lead about general Hinduism-related topics, it is a cause of constant edit wars and competing claims which are at best avoided (we also prefer only the most common Sanskrit names in the lead). Gotitbro (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the articles you've linked and don't see any reason for a rename. Haryana, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh are part of the Punjab region and that was the historical name of the caste. What are your reasons for wishing to rename the article? We already have an article on Dalits and it could be mentioned there that many modern Dalits use the name Valmiki to describe themselves; a journal article I was studying also states that "Valmiki was also the prevailing term used by others to denote the sanitation labour castes." Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: Alright, but I think the lead still needs to reflect the geographic situation better, it should mention that the Chuhra caste is found in other areas of North India as well like Rajasthan and even in South India. Currently the lead makes it "seem" like its limited to Punjab/UP. Gotitbro (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotitbro, the sentence currently reads "Populated regions include the Punjab region of India and Pakistan, as well as Uttar Pradesh in India, among other parts of the Indian subcontinent" (emphasis added). Do you have any suggestions to modify this? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I think that line should be replaced by "as well as northern and southern India, including Uttar Pradesh, among other parts of the Indian subcontinent". Gotitbro (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The heaviest population is in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, so these states will be named specifically. I will incorporate your suggestion as well, but will reword it slightly to read "Populated regions include the Punjab region of India and Pakistan, as well as Uttar Pradesh in India, among other parts of the Indian subcontinent such as southern India." Mentioning northern India again isn't beneficial because Punjab and UP are already listed (both of which are in northern India). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:2020 India–Pakistan border skirmishes § Sourcing

I disagree with your revert here. The source is clearly saying that they got the information from the Indian military source.[16] How it is a 'media' claim anymore? Shankargb (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb: We are not going to source anonymous claims which media sources claim to be from "military sources". The military/government has provided no such numbers beyond their own casualties. The same thing happened in the 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, where the government/military had provided no numbers but the media was citing various estimates from "sources". Only official claims go in infoboxes. Gotitbro (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem misguided about how sources are used. Read WP:RS and understand that not a single source on the article is using totally military source. You also removed content from article body and not just from infobox. Unless the military disputes the information, you have no reason to ignore reliable sources who are quoting the "military sources".[17] As a side note, I don't see any "anonymous" source, but even if there was one then it should not be rejected at all. Citing an anonymous source does not lower your credibility. Shankargb (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb: Oh, please don't teach me about reliable sources, there is reason why most sources perennial sources (read news sources) from India and Pakistan are rejected/not relied upon here on wiki. Get yourself familiar with how and what things should be cited. Even in the article itself, only the officially claimed casualty numbers will be mentioned, other numbers outside of that might be mentioned if from named field experts not what local newspapers have to say from unnamed sources (read anonymous) have to say. That is how it has been on India-Pakistan conflict articles and generally through WP:CONSENSUS, as can be seen in the various Talk page discussions of previous conflicts. Gotitbro (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed your signature in your recent post at WP:ITNRD. I would have fixed it, had I known how to. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move was contested between you and me...you suggested Manipur Kingdom.I agree..I take it as consensus.even user Chaipau supported but with a different view which I explained.why are you reverting even a technical move by an admin...ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 12:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any move that is contested should pass through a move discussion which you have started now and will be closed by an experienced uninvolved editor or an admin who will assess the arguments and votes by various users therein. You cannot both start a move discussion on the Talk page and claim it to be a technical move at the same time (the moving admin likely missed that you had started a move discussion as well). I have not given my support to your suggested move nor have I voted in as of now, it was merely a spelling suggestion for a move request which you might have make (as you have done now). Please wait for other editors to comment at the discussion and for it to close. Gotitbro (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will wait... also the revision history of the article need to be revised...your revert removed many well reference and already reached consensus lines..ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the excellent sock-busting over the past year! – Uanfala (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Gotitbro, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Gotitbro,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Valmiki caste. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro. You have added information about the film adaptation in Saubhagya Sundari. But that film is different from this play. It was not adapted from this play. :) --Gazal world (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: Might be a loose adaptation but I am pretty sure it was derived from this play or story. Gotitbro (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safarnama (TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		This barnstar is provided to you for your edits on several articles. keep going. Vengeance 01 (talk)

Hii as u write about movies and serials on historical figure then please add also about portray of Rana Sanga in popular culture. 42.111.3.200 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@42.111.3.200: There is no standalone film or television show on Rana Sanga as such, I have added what I could find about him in films and television. Gotitbro (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epiphyllum oxypetalum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulebakavali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabaddi World Cup and the two articles on it should all now be back as they were (I saw that you'd done the necessary with Kabaddi World Cup (Circle style)). I've also recreated Kabaddi World Cup (disambiguation). (I know next to nothing about kabaddi, but do fix DABlinks; and remembered the DAB page as soon as I saw your post at WP:ANI.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for the the SPI case here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

make an article about Bikram malati (film director) mismatched actor played biky role create Bikram malati article about actor director — Preceding unsigned comment added by BikyownK (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BikyownK: While the person does not appear WP:NOTABLE to me (nor am I familiar with him), feel free to WP:CREATE an article if you believe he meets relevant wiki guidelines (such as WP:GNG). Gotitbro (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please add in the marriage section about Rukmavati Bai, also known as Jodhi Bibi, the youngest daughter of Rao Maldeo Rathore by Tipu Paswan(concubine) who was born posthumously to him. She married Akbar in 1581 when she was about 17 (I think) . She was sent to Akbar in dōlō and this marriage was either arranged by Chandrasen or Udai Singh. You can find several sources including The Mertiyo Rathors of Merta, Rajasthan Volume II pg-35. Manavati (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Manavati: Feel free to request the changes the Talk page of Akbar. Gotitbro (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. Manavati (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V (2020 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why the external links for Haunted Hotels Wikipedia page are dead and haven't been updated? HauntedTravel666 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you edited khizr khan page recently to its original form, but you didnt add the Afghan mention (which is very important source) of Muntakhab-al-Lubab . Can you add that too so the artice become balanced and complete? It goes like this." while according to Muntakhab-al-Lubab he was of Afghan origin." Thank you .

@84.211.44.191: Please provide a reliable source which states this, either a secondary one confirming this or a primary translation of the Muntakhab-al-Lubab with the exact passage. I tried to verify this but came up with nothing. Gotitbro (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for reply. Here is both a secondary source and primary source stating the actual paragraph in the book. https://historyofpashtuns.blogspot.com/2015/11/sayyid-or-syed-sultans-of-delhi-were_12.html. I think this sould be more than enough. Thank you.

@84.211.44.191: Blogs are not reliable sources but I was able to find the primary source on the Internet Archive and have added it, a secondary source (by a recognized historian) is still needed which analyzes or re-states this thus I have also tagged it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may be we can use this article by dr neira as a "temperory" secondary source.https://www.boloji.com/articles/785/history-of-islam-in-india

That is a blog again (and Hebbar is surgeon not a historian), moreover the blog talks about the dynasties as a whole not particulalry about Khizr Khan's ethnicity (also has errors like Multan being in Sindh); a poor source. There are no temporary additions, the tag is apt until a better source can be found. Gotitbro (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been vandalisem (removal of your source) on khizr khan origin section. You can add it and also i found secondary source( you can check it on sayed dynastys edit history) and fix both. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you have edited the khizr khan page i think its fair to inform you that there have been vandalisem in sayed dynasty page. The user have added origins with many mistakes. Can you add the correct origins that you contributed in khizr khan page. thank you.

Hi. The vandalism is still there in sayed dynasty's origin section. Sorry for repeat but as you are known to the article (edited khizr khan origins) You are the best person for the job at hand. Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_dynasty . I hope you do something about it soon. Because it seriously undermines the article. Thank you!

Hello, Gotitbro. Re this edit, I noticed that you have changed Dhillon's citizenship to India, however, I haven't been able to find any source that says the subject holds Indian citizenship. Thoughts? -- Ab207 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: Any RS which 'explicitly' says that she holds a British passport? Most sources refer to her as an Indian actress or as working in Indian films, stating anything otherwise based on an assumption is WP:OR. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace is a more defining factor than place of work for citizenship. Talk:Nora Fatehi#Nationality probably interests you. Though specifics differ, it's a related case. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the subject was born and raised in the said country of citizenship (Canada) and sources exist that state that along with her roots (Morocco). Not so clear here, the place of birth might be London but she was raised in India and sources do not exist that clearly state her citizenship and we should not put conjectures as to fact. Gotitbro (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Given the citizenship part is a little murky, how about removing it on the side of caution and introduce her as "an actress of Indian origin"? -- Ab207 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that she is not of Indian nationality which again goes into OR. So, it should be avoided; perhaps the lead can be as such "Indian film actress" and wikilink Indian film to Cinema of India. Gotitbro (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think presenting verifiable information and omitting what is unknown falls under OR. "Indian film actress" is not an improvement either, because it implies that she is an Indian national who is a film actress. Wikilinks are intended to provide additional information but not to present content in the article. I believe it's better to introduce her as "an actress", and write that she was born in London and raised in India in the next sentence. Somewhat similar to Russell Crowe. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the contention is here. There is no source which says that she holds British citizenship quite the contrary they present her as an Indian actress. Both the examples you have given above have detailed sources describing citizenship issues. Not the case here, just because someone is born outside of their country of origin and residence does not mean we are going synthesize leads and the article around it especially when sources don't say otherwise. This is all what I have to say about this. Gotitbro (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contention here is quite clear. It's not unreasonable to say that Dhillion may hold British citizenship because she is born in London. Sources referring to her as an Indian is ambiguous because it could mean ethnicity also, as seen in Fatehi's case. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please the explain the reasoning behind removing the mention of Punjab (as a nation where Multan lies) from the biography and where the modern day state where Multan lies?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZerePayat (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly consequential especially in the lead. And inserting these entities everywhere in the article borders on WP:POVPUSH. The subject is not notable for his nisba, rest of the info on his early life is scant (which is mentioned therein). Noting just the city is fine, everything else is WP:OR and POVPUSH. Gotitbro (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to this page. Why? In big letters above the edit box it reads- PLEASE DO NOT ADD ITEMS TO THIS LIST THAT DO NOT HAVE A LINKED DEDICATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Nevertheless you made multiple entries to the page without articles in your edit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Sorry, I must've missed it in the visual editor. Though I did also add incidents which have dedicated Wikipedia articles, I have restored them and removed the others. Gotitbro (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1- There are no redirects on this page. The article must be about a accident not a person or a coup.

2- References are not needed. A link to the WP article is all that is required...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: I think I have addressed both of these issues now. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you're changing a 1981 accident from the 1981 section to 1980....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: That was incorrectly listed under 1980, it happened in 1981 as can easily be checked on the article page and its refs. Gotitbro (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalistani separatists? How did you get know that this hijacking was done by khalistani separatists?? Even the source you mentioned does not say anywhere tht this was done by them.!! You do not have a proper citation or source regarding this and you simply mentioned it as khalistani separatists...wth? you do not become a great editer by just putting in random articles whatever you like..

Did the movie makers tell you exactly on which incident this movie is based!????

provide a proper citation or proof and then do whatever you want Adithya003 (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, mind your tone and avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS, unless I repeat you are looking for a ban. That was clearly noted in the trailer and for which I have added a WP:RS source now as well. You could've simply politely asked for a source on the article's talk page or your edit summaries rather than disruptively repeatedly removing the content and even wrongly citing it as spam (read WP:SPAM for what is actually considered under the policy- note unsourced content isn't it). You needn't go on lecturing other experienced editors when you haven't familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's policies in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Farah Khan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Princepratap1234 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Princepratap1234: Do you even understand what WP:Vandalism is? My edits were perfectly in line with WP:FURTHER READING, read up on that before serving spurious notices to experienced editors. Gotitbro (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add categories to articles, esp. of those for living people, that are not supported in the article's text. Please see WP:CATVER and WP:EGRS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at Muhajir people because someone is changing the information and moving page repeatedly. Previously you have edited that page. It'd be better if you fix it stable version. Hasan (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen that you've reverted many times addition of Amiruddin Kidwai as national flag designer as the a/c to archived source of Ministery of Information of Pakistan states that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the flag designer but i've finded this source from Dawn from its 2009's archives which clears this fact and about the confusion of three flag designers as you stated that previous consensus in 2018 here i've found the source of ARY News which clears this confusion that Master Altaf Hussain sworned the flag only based on proposal of design's request by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and again source mentions Amiruddin Kidwai as flag designer and there are plenty of many other sources like [18] from The Nation (newspaper and [19] from Daily Times (newspaper) and [20] from The News International (newspaper) which mentions Amiruddin Kidwai as flag designer, so should we now mention Amiruddin Kidwai as flag designer now on other pages also like National symbols of Pakistan? Wallu2 (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallu2: In the absence of official information from the Government of Pakistan with regards to Kidwai, we need to be extra careful about our sources and the information we are adding. The two Wikipedia policies that are important here are WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:CIRCULAR (where information was added to Wikipedia and was copied by other sources without further/independent checks). I was unable to find any reliable sources (or official ones) which list Kidwai as the designer or go into the specifics on how he actually designed the flag besides WP:PASSINGMENTIONs. Newspapers are not generally reliable for historical information (see WP:HISTRS), the sources you have linked here are also problematic and not upto the mark. I will analyse them one by one:

• Dawn: While this might have been okay, the article mentions no byline (writer of the article) and is a clear no go from here. And only a passing mention is made of Kidwai.
• ARY News: This also mentions no byline and also contains a mere passing mention of Kidwai.
• The Nation: Not acceptable at all, written by/the speech of a school student.
• Daily Times: An opinion piece (which are not considered reliable), plus only a passing mention of Kidwai.
• The News: Opinion piece which appears to be a circular copy of Wikipedia content.

None of these would be considered reliable on Wikipedia. And since no official mention is made of Kidwai, I am apprehensive of adding that in articles. A source lacks which mentions the detailed history of Pakistan's flag and who exactly designed it. The best we have is that it was based on the AIML flag with additional details (white strip et al) suggested by Jinnah. Rest of the info on designers etc. is dubious without historical backing. Gotitbro (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balach Marri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gotitbro, I created the article “Gautam Brahmins” long back in 2006. My objective of creating this article was to provide information specifically about the Brahmin community of Western Uttar Pradesh, neighboring Rajasthan and Haryana, who wrote the last name as “Gautam”: But afterwards, some contributors started adding information about the Brahmin community of other regions of India who also happened to bear the last name “Gautam”. Well, I didn’t mind. But what happened later, a few disgruntled elements started vandalizing the article by sneakingly trying to impose information that is not at all related with the Brahmin community (forget about the Brahmin community having the last name “Gautam”), e.g., edits by 2409:4063:4397:16BD:1CBD:28BC:149C:174 on 25 July, 2021. I have already replied to 2409:4063:4397:16BD:1CBD:28BC:149C:174 on his talk page and provided the factual information against the misinformation the person has spread through his vandalizing efforts on the history page of the article. I appreciate your endeavor to add some concrete information on the article. But in this enthusiasm, knowingly or unknowingly, you have forgotten the objective of the article by just writing the names all the persons having last “Gautam” and who have a page on Wikipedia under the heading “Notable People”. But that’s not the way. I totally disagree with you. We have another article on Wikipedia named “Gautam Rajput”. Names of some people in the list of persons under “Notable People” in the article “Gautam Brahmins” should have belonged to the “Gautam Rajput” article. Some names should have belonged to the other different community pages. By clubbing all persons (having last name “Gautam”) together under the page “Gautam Brahmins” is just providing totally wrong information (and deceiving) the readers of Wikipedia across the world. That’s why, I am deleting a few names ( I know that they don’t belong to the Brahmin community at all) from the list and I assume that you would agree with me. Thanks. (talk) 01:17, 05 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lomasha: Guatam Rajputs are not known to use Gautam as a surname in prevalence (Singh et al being more common). I did do my due diligence and did not include people where I knew the last name was a patronym or the person was outside of the group/traditional areas. The persons you have removed do indeed not belong the Brahmin group, that was an oversight on my part, I regret the error. Gotitbro (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GotitBro:Thanks for your clarification. But again I don’t completely agree with the argument provided by you regarding the “Gautam Rajput”. They are mainly found in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Vindhya regions of Madhya Pradesh. Rajputs/ Thakurs affiliate with the similar “Gotra system” as Brahmins – the only difference is that they mainly follow the “Teacher-Disciple lineage” system (instead of patrilineal system what the Brahmins mainly affiliate with). So only those Rajputs/ Thakurs prefer to adopt the last name as “Gautam”, who affiliate with that gotra. ‘’Singh” as last name is however, popular among Rajputs/ Thakurs, we should not get confused that every person bearing ‘’Singh” as last name would belong to this community. Rather majority of persons having ‘’Singh” as last name hail from non-Rajput/ Thakur community – from different communities across the array. They have their own specific(and historical) lastnames.

Anyway, I appreciate your interest in Indian sociological structure. By the way, I wonder whether you are a native of India (specifically North India). Lomasha (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Raj Kanwar

added links pointing to Itihaas, Jeet, Ghayal and Mr. India

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visvanathan Rudrakumaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Economic Times.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Pandit Todarmal should redirect to Diwan Todarmal. What's currently at the Pandit page was originally named Diwan; I suspect they may be different individuals. "Dewan#Title" is a hereditary title, whereas Pandit is a honorific for a type of scholar. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OhNoitsJamie: It's the same person, a disruptive editor (now blocked) moved the page to a dubious [official] title, I was undoing that. The Diwan redirect can/should be deleted. Pandit Todarmal was the article's original name and how the person is refered to as (to distinguish from the more famous Todarmal). There is a Todarmal of Sirhind redirect if someone wants to remove the honorific from there. Gotitbro (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I commented on the RfC you posted. Could you point me to some of the discussions that have been problematic in the topic area? I'm quite interested in seeing them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Did not notice any discussion on this front that it why I started the RfC. Just noticed a lot of editing contention/removal and [uncited] addition (e.g. your edit itself here) in this param of the template which doesn't actually contribute anything valuable to the article. What caught my eye were a lot of non-descript service providers being added to the area which is what finally motivated me to start the RfC, better to do away with this altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's coded, any attempt to add providers with index numbers above 10 fails silently (without even a check for unknown parameters because of the use of regex), so I remove them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Even with the upper limit, as you can see, it can quickly turn into clutter when those [sat, cab etc.] params keep filling in. Gotitbro (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should have seen some of these infoboxes when the limit was 30 for cable and satellite. Just look at BabyTV before the culling. The axe needed to be wielded, and I've come down pretty hard. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice the reduction and it was a job well done. I thought we'd eventually get rid of these after that, and deferred from any step on my side, but had to take one when the clutter kept piling up. Gotitbro (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at George Harrison, you may be blocked from editing. George Harrison never lived in India. Visiting India and having one's ashes scattered in India is not the same as residence in India. Read Expatriate before making similar edits. Sundayclose (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: This is just excessive warning templating. The category itself can be justified by the fact that Harrison did stay for sometime in India on visitation (that is what expat means after all). But I neither disputed your revert nor did you ask for the reasoning before assuming disruption. Please don't be this excessive, I am an experienced user myself and WP:AGF exists. Gotitbro (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, read Expatriate. He visited India. He did not reside in India. So far two other editors have thanked me for reverting your edit. Get consensus at Talk:George Harrison. No, it's not "excessive warning" considering all the previous warnings you have received. Being experienced does not grant you any special privileges. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: It is excessive, the thanks received on your edits do not justify or change that. Did you even read the what the warnings were about or who gave them before making an assumption of disruptive behavior. Neither did I edit war or challenge your edit, not sure what makes you think that I was being disruptive or acting in bad-faith; even if I was wrong it could be/was an honest mistake. Be polite it does not hurt, not everyone is coming to bite you - not me anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read the warnings, which is exactly why I gave you a level 3. You have multiple warnings for disruptive editing and edit warring, as well as two blocks for edit warring. I'm not arguing this point further. I'll repeat a previous comment and then I'm finished here: Don't make such edits again without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Clearly this is in vain. Being WP:BOLD or having past warnings (mostly by socks or otherwise)/blocks (both while dealing with socks) is not a crime (just because I haven't sanitized my Talk page of these) that you need hold against someone's head on an edit that clearly was not disruptive and was in good-faith which didn't have consensus as a prerequisite. Your labelling an editor and simply assuming bad-faith with aspersions by taking a gander at the talk page when challenged on frivolous templating is not going to get you far. Gotitbro (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was finished, but you keep stirring things up. You say you're an "experienced editor"; do you honestly think that removing warnings from your talk page exonerates you from the warnings?? I think I'm beginning to see the source of your problem edits. "Sanitizing" your talk page is irrelevant. The warnings are still there in the history, which is the first place I would look and the first place an admin looks when they come to block you. Now, I really am finished. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! As if any editor is not aware of that. That was more a point on your gandering at blocks/warnings to label my edits as disruptive (WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME). Of-course you keep digging unrelated topics and do not address in what way was the edit itself disruptive or fleeting templating of users. Do not warn users if you cannot properly justify them in the first place. 02:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs)

Sundayclose, as far as I can see, your revert of the addition of a category to George Harrison was a good idea. As for the warning, well, people are free to use any template they see fit. However, the warnings on this talk page (or at least the ones I remember seeing being placed before) are all bogus: posted either by socks, by POV pushers, or unwisely by good faith editors in the middle of a heated dispute. I wouldn't place any stock in them if I were you. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paromita Vohra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anil Biswas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: A very Happy New Year to you as well! Have a great year ahead :). Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gotitbro. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Kaanchli Life in a Slough at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in your edit of article about Bible Ki Kahaniyan,you said mother teresa appears in it, so i am intrigued. Where bro?Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waltzingmogumogupeach: Here for e.g. Gotitbro (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Gangubai Kothewali

 – Gotitbro (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Kathiawad is not a administrative place also Saurashtra is also not an administrative place. See the search results of Kathiawad and Saurashtra in Wikipedia. In that scene by adding Kathiawad, you also vandalis the Wikipedia policy. Secondly Western Indian agecy are group of all agency of former west india. If you know Bombay Presidency was much divided into princely states to ease of rule. Even Bombay Presidency have northern and southern region, so to distinguish this result, west Indian agency should be there. And lastly about adding Maharashtra, Maharashtra is a state of country India, and it should be there. So if you want only three subplace you should remove Kamathipura instead of Maharashtra as other editors with lots edits do earlier.

I wait for your answer... Thenexttalk (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]