User talk:बिनोद थारू

Archive of talk discussion:

User talk:बिनोद थारू/1

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_Whizin[edit]

Hi, I think you may have accidentally closed this instead of !voting, as your close does not reflect the consensus and reads as a supervote, and anyway non-admins are strongly discouraged from closing any XFDs that are possibly controversial (i.e. anything where there is disagreement). Could you please revert and allow an admin to close/relist? Thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to revert your closure of New Relic, as you are not allowed to close AFDs you participated in and the presence of a delete !vote removes the nominator's ability to withdraw. JoelleJay (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and take in mind your message. As well as abstaining from closing in the future. My tool doesn't have a reopen, so I am not able to unfortunately . but keep was snowball so this is only a bureaucratic mishap. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can go into the history and revert your close. Even if it's a snowball, you are not allowed to override other delete !votes by withdrawing the nomination. JoelleJay (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting of AfD's[edit]

Hi. I noticed you relisted two articles for deletion today including one which had only keep votes. The relisting comment for Red Light Management was "there not been clear justification that no source brought forward validate CORP". That suggests to me you are trying to second-guess what seems to be a pretty clear consensus, rather than trying to generate greater discussion or a more clear consensus as described at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Relisting_AfDs

May I suggest that as a relatively new user, you might want to participate in more deletion discussions before taking on tasks like closing or relisting? Oblivy (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and take in mind your message, abstain from close afd for the long future. As for the discussion, there was no consensus. The IP just votes "keep" and a keep voter is criticized recurringly for making impulsive votes, the vote itself being just "keep". hence a relist. Argument were about COI versus sources meeting the threshold of NCORP. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate, is it? There were three registered accounts that voted and just one IP editor.

I guess the relisted AfD will proceed but I appreciate your intention to refrain from closing tasks for the foreseeable future, I've been participating in AfD discussions for a long time and even I don't feel like I'm ready to do closures (although I'm sometimes tempted). Oblivy (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NICOR Closure[edit]

Hi, sorry to return to your talk page again but as the AfD is closed this seems to be the right place.
When I asked about WP:BEFORE searches, I was suggesting you might not have done enough work to form an opinion on non-notability before bringing an AfD, The Loyola cite was on the 1st page of Google Scholar results for Nicor Energy, strongly suggesting your before searches were inadequate (and if not, you could have said why you considered and rejected the sources).
I appreciate you took my comment seriously, but based on the discussions above with me and with @JoelleJay, I was surprised to see you using closing tools again. I think the proper response was to add a comment withdrawing the AfD, and then let an admin or more experienced user consider the close. Oblivy (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked close for convenience, no meaningful action was taken like when I closed before keep due to consensus or relist or mistakenly with one other delete vote. Sorry again, those discussion did not cross my mind in this situation. I was under the idea of avoiding WP:BUREAUCRACY. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some value to non-admin closures where you want to withdraw and there's nothing but keep votes. But considering that you have already been challenged about your use of closing tools, not just by me, but also by another editor much more experienced than me, perhaps you should consider disabling those tools altogether. Oblivy (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment out https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A6_%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82/common.js&diff=prev&oldid=1191021156 बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative[edit]

FYI - After the PROD was reverted I started an AfD. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying/ within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Power-to-heat into Power-to-X. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merged बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:बिनोद थारू[edit]

User:बिनोद थारू, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:बिनोद थारू (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:बिनोद थारू during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sastra Robotics proposed deletion[edit]

Shouldn't there be a poll for proposed deletions? The article has some independent references, but for me the bigger issue is notability. There are lots of robotics startups, it's not clear why this one should be in an encyclopedia. Peter.corke (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article for PROD because it has only routine coverage in English and Malayalam (south india language).

WP:NORG says you need high-quality sources and coverage beyond promotional posts or routine statements like acquisition or stock price update. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD tags can be reverted just if one person removes it from the page. Afterwards, you can add a AfD tag which starts the deletion discussion. PROD and AFD are different things. PROD can be placed as to not overload the AFD discussions and maintenance tags (like the no notability tag) can be placed as to not overload the admins who delete the PRODded articles after exactly a week. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Merging"[edit]

Hi, I notice in your recent edits multiple occasions where you redirect ann article to another one, marking it as a "merge", but actually not adding anything to the merge target (and several times actually removing content. In at least one case (Economics and Human Biology) you basically deleted this article on a notable journal. This is all very misleading, please stop and correct this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was unsourced and there were no other sources on the internet for that topic. Therefore, the best decision is to redirect. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, especially about journals and I will stopped to redirect journals and towns starting from now. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles[edit]

Hello again, I just wanted to check if you meant to use Template:Primary sources on Jahrome Brown? The reason I ask is that to the best of my knowledge, that particular template is for articles that use multiple primary sources whereas that article is a stub article about a living person with subject-specific notability because he plays in a professional sports league that currently uses one primary source and not multiple primary sources. With some of these athlete biographies its pretty much a given that they'll start off as a single source stub and editors will expand the article incrementally as his career progresses. Do you mind either removing the primary sources tag and adding a more relevant tag or perhaps just reverting your edit? I'll leave it to your editorial judgement, thanks again.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched multiple RfC and RfA and conclude WP:OR must be upheld at all times and that WP:SNG are there as a heuristic tool to keep new pages and close deletion discussions quickly. An article cannot be built on primary sources or original research. Database entries like match results may be built on primary sources since it doesn't require OR, but significant coverage in secondary sources is needed at least somewhere in the article (to meet WP:N and WP:NOT). बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm not sure if that's the case with biographical articles about living subjects. In this instance the single primary source was clearly there just to verify that this individual plays rugby professionally. Plus Template:Primary sources is for pages made from multiple primary sources. Surely, Template:One source or no tag at all would have been the more appropriate course of action in this scenario?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One source since there is only one source. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that you place the Template:Primary sources tag in error?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No since the article was only based on primary sources, and adding a secondary source would help it meet WP:N. If no secondary source exist, then an ideal world would want merging all of the stubs into a list or other wider article, which this time will have stand-alone notability. The one-source template would've been another valid template to add. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you want to help improve this encyclopaedia by developing the page so that it meets WP:Notability? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not up to one person to work on everything बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page edit summaries[edit]

Would you care to elaborate on this talk page edit summary? Specifically, I'd like to know which part of my comment you believe was 'misinformation'? my understanding of WP:AFD is that its purpose is to discuss whether enough independent reliable sources exist to warrant a standalone article. Could you please explain how I misinformed you?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remove misinformed comments (like the assumption of being allowed to strike opposing votes in deletion discussion) because such statements can spread rumors. If there is what looks like a bad vote to you in AfD then you can comment underneath it. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was it a vote?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a ballot.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to some kinds of ballots (ex. those in Russia). बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for explaining this to me. Do you mind showing me the part of WP:AFD where it says that deletion discussions are essentially a ballot with the outcome decided by the number of keep/delete votes?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result is decided at the discretion of the admin closer. This decision, especially if taken without much thought, results like a strawpoll. On the opposite end of the scale, a more precise closer might weigh in the different arguments in the discussion and make conscious effort to ignore the quantity of votes weighing in on each side. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not a ballot? I'm confused. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen over the past 2 months of being here, I would say 80% of discussions are identical to ballots (they follow the rule: greater number of votes = result) बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basing that on your first-hand experience?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can verify the actual percentage of poll-like results by tracking down the last few discussions and counting the votes. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are they votes if it's not a ballot? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a ballot in most practical cases. In other cases, the close is usually recorded as no consensus, which is a default to keep. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. It's a discussion about the availibility of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and casting aspersions about the page's creators and subsequent editors isn't something that we do at WP:AFD. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring deleted talk page messages[edit]

Hey there, would you mind restoring the messages that I left for you earlier on this talk page? You know, the ones that you labelled as 'libel' and 'misinformation' in your edit summaries. This time, could you please keep them live for at least seven days so that other editors have a chance to read them? Thanks. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of following misinformation. You were following a message someone had left on my talk page, when in reality there is no rule mandating to "keep messages for a week". You can read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete the message in the first place? I was only trying to help you. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting talk page messages which have the potential to spread rumors (misinformation), like the idea of being able to strike other's votes because of their argument's lack of merit, or needing to keep talk page messages for a week which is not required by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But surely if what you're saying isn't relevant to the discussion then it's better if the comment is struck through? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to follow WP:OWNTALK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. So were you complying with WP:OWNTALK when you made a legal threat in this edit summary which read, "Clear statement which was being used to generate libel"? Or are edit summaries exempt from from WP:OWNTALK and WP:No legal threats? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page guideline, it is written:

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)]".

This made me think I was allowed to use the word 'libel' to refer to a statement that is a rumor. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to LGBT reproduction[edit]

Hi, you deleted my previous talk page message where I asked you to clarify your contributions to LGBT reproduction where you wrote, "many gay transgender men choose to freeze their eggs before transitioning" I found your edit a bit confusing and I find terms like trans men instead of trans people somewhat insensitive and ill-informed. Also? Since when do males produce eggs? Surely one has to ovulate to produce an egg? Or did I miss a biology lesson?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought all of that in from a previous article during the merger. If you don't like trans men, then you can replace with trans people but that is what I found in the listed sources (ctrl+f) and also the revert undid formatting changes back to a version of the article that had incorrect structure. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way you handled a sensitive topic like human rights are some kind of joke to you. That's why I called you out on it. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have only pasted the paragraphs, rearranged the sections to follow the different type of reproduction procedures, and deleted a section of "popular culture" as WP:OR. I don't know how that has anything to do with human rights. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender men are men who were assigned female at birth, and as such have ovaries and produce eggs. Xnyarla (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, बिनोद थारू![edit]

Happy New Year!

बिनोद थारू,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

December 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SQL PL. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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.

Others have previously cautioned you about using article merges as a method of back-door deletion. Now you deleted all the content in our SQL PL article but did not merge any of it into IBM Db2. You claimed, however, that you did this on the two talk pages: Talk:SQL PL and Talk:IBM Db2.

See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR:

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

To make it easier for other editors to find the history of the blanked article, it's good practice to add a short notice at the talk page of the target article, even if no content has been merged there. This is especially useful if the blanked article had few visits and infrequent edits. If the redirect replaces an article that has been deleted by an administrator, this notice is the only way for editors to know that a previous version of the article existed at all.

As above, if you disagree with a BLAR, undo it and mention your concerns on the talk page. There is no "backdoor deletion" since the article still resides in the history and this is certainly not controversial content-wise since it can be easily presumed as a case of you following my contribution history ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]).

Thanks 🙂 बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much that you redirected that article, but that you claimed on the talk pages to have merged the contents, whereas in actual fact you did not do such thing at all. You have been warned before that this is misleading and disruptive. So let this be your last warning: the next time you claim a redirect is a merge, I will block you from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and another question[edit]

Hello again, I thought I would just drop by to wish you a happy New Year and glean some more of your expert Wikipedia knowledge from you if I may? You are afterall so wonderfully prolific on WP and the way you do more in a day than I do in a year is really inspiring to me. Anyways, I was just wondering why you prodded Nice (app)? Surely, that's an AFD candidate if ever there was one. No?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a PROD because I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources about it and do not expect any chance of keep in an AfD. And AfD is more useful to do if there are ambiguous sources or ambiguous precedent on keeping an article. WP:NPRODUCT and WP:TNT can be applied directly to that topic. Also AfDs should not be made too often, since if there are too many AfDs there is no more participants in each AfD. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As a result of the discussion at WP:ANI, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. You are free to appeal this block if you change your mind. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ppatel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ppatel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. NebY (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]