User talk:Brihaspati/Archives/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Script[edit]

Please do not add Indian script in India related articles as per our policy. Kindly visit WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello Harshil. If you need any help in editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Gazal world (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian from Gujarat. Feel free to ask for help if you are stuck anywhere. Regards and Keep editing.-Nizil (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Delhi Temple attack for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Delhi Temple attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Delhi Temple attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hugsyrup (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan discretionary sanctions[edit]

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) 04:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Harshil169. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Chirantan Das, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Lapablo (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the notice. I have read your clarification on the talkpage. The image should be deleted (I will look into it later) due to copyright problem. There is a legal process to get copyrighted image from others. See Commons:OTRS and Commons:WikiProject Permission requests. You can not upload image not taken by you because you do not have copyrights over it. The images owned by others need to go through legal formalities to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Hope it clarifies. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom[edit]

I would like to ask, how did my contributions appear unconstructive? I'm not sure how they turned out that way. Several film articles include a consensus from Rotten Tomatoes (if there is one). TPalkovitz (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)TPalkovitz[reply]

@TPalkovitz: Hi, you didn't add any reference for your claim. If you have added it then I wouldn't have removed it. Claims made on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Read WP:Verifiability. Regards, -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intervene. @Harshil169:, I would add reference if it is easy to find one instead of reverting it. You may simply add ^{[citation needed]} tag with edit note "reference needed". So someone else would add reference. If edit is helpful and true, we can leave it with appropriate tag. :) And I why this section is named Ransom? :D -Nizil (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in recent changes page and it was tagged as likely to be bad faith. Hence, I removed that. I removed many content of that rag and those were purely vandalism. I will take care though. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

Also, the font color markup surrounding the link is overridden by the default link color; if you want the font color, you have to put the color markup inside the link.

Also,  is invalid markup; under the obsolete method you would use .

You are encouraged to change

--<b><i><font color="orange"><font type="Brush Script MT"> [[User:Harshil169|Harshil]] </font></font></i></b><sup>[[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]]</sup>

: -- Harshil ^{want to talk?}

to

-- [[User:Harshil169|Harshil]] [[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]] : -- Harshil ^{want to talk?}

If you want the font color to work, change it to

-- [[User:Harshil169|Harshil ]][[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]] : -- Harshil ^{want to talk?}

If you want the font color and face to work, change it to

--<b> [[User:Harshil169|<i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>]]</b><sup>[[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]]</sup>

: -- Harshil ^{want to talk?}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Zomato, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ 05:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: ohh, please stop it. No original research was added on the page. Neither I did WP:SYNTHESIS by compiling sources. All claims are well cited but you vandalised article by putting Restaurant logging off controversy under sub heading of Food has no religion tweet which has nothing to do with the sub heading. Give me one sentence which I added without citing reference. I gave sub heading to each controversy like you did and you gave me warning about it. Please, stop biting and assume good faith for edits by me. You’re doing edit war by doing disruptive edits. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming no original research was added, why dont you present the sources and the quotes for the same ? The fact that you are unable to produce such sources validates my point.
I think you should read WP:BATTLE this attitude will soon get you banned from wikipedia. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Why should I give sources when sources are already there in the article? You raised issue that I did original research, you’ve to provide me sources and then I can defend myself. Just for an example see this: Zomato#Controversies Do you seriously think that restaurants were logging off from the Zomato just because of that tweet? Just check what you had done. You put whole different issue under the same sub heading. I added different sub heading for the issue and you came here for giving warnings about my behaviour and ban on Wikipedia. Just read the article and you’ll get idea what it seems. Read WP:Civility and WP:JDL too. Regards, — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

@Harshil169: I do not see this standing. DBig reverted one edit by you on Zomato which was not constructive and divided up a section into vague headers violating WP:POV. Further, the last few of your edits reverted by them were discussed here at length whereby you were told that your edits broke the infobox. Further, the intermediate revert had happened owing to WP:OVERCITE. But I am a bit unsure if a mere second reference will classify as 'overcite'. --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamravidhir thanks for explaining it to User:Harshil169. We are already having a parallel discussion on the thread User_talk:Harshil169#August_2019_2 that was started earlier, lets continue the discussion there. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TamraVidhir: can you justify that restaurant owners are logging off from Zomato because of that tweet. Dbig has unconstructively put that whole section under the subheading of that tweet which has no relation with that tweet. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169, Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:BURDEN. And then do the needful.--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’re references for the edits:-

For first sub heading of abusive advertisement- Zomato#cite_ref-45

For second sub heading of eating food from customer’s delivery box-Zomato#cite_ref-46

For last one sub heading—Zomato#cite_ref-56.

Can you now take a time to let me understand how this is WP:OR and why restaurants are logging out from Zomato because of that tweet as you put those lines under that sub heading? As you did it here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zomato&diff=911491976&oldid=911491643-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil, the sub-headers were not neutral per WP:POV. Concerning the Log Out Campaign to remain under the "food no religion" header we will require a source which link the campaign as a reaction to the tweet. Otherwise, I do not see it standing as a justified inclusion under the tweet section. I asked DBig about the same issue here. Lastly, reiterating we can reach a consensus without being passive aggressive and by refraining from ad hominems. Thank you! Hoping to hear from you both --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was telling to DBig but he was not listening even. Let us accept that sub headings were not neutral according to you then how it became original research and he gave warning about it? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamravidhir regarding the logout campaign, I have already replied on the article talk page. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking forward from Talk:Zomato/Archives/2019#subsection_heading_Food_has_no_religion_Tweet. I am of the opinion that in lack of a source establishing the link between the log out campaign and the tweet, the same should be moved to the broader header of "Controversies", added as a para after the para on the petition to the Competition Commission. --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: regarding your clarification above, It is not disputed that these events happen. Your POV wordings are a matter of dispute here. As per WP:BURDEN you are supposed to present the quote and the ref that states it in defence of your headers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. Take a look.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: the quote from the source supporting your headers is missing. please add here. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Half issue is resolved now here:- Talk:Zomato/Archives/2019#subsection_heading_Food_has_no_religion_Tweet. I’ll post about my heading by tomorrow on same page. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabhdeo[edit]

@Harshil169: you made significant edits in a single session on Rishabhdeo. While I agree with all your substantive changes, such large-scale changes without no explanation at all are counter to WP editing policies of explaining edits and being cautious about major edits. Therefore, I had to revert the edit made at 11:13, 8 June 2019. Your other edits made in separate sessions which are minor and explained have been left in place. I hope you will revisit the page and provide your contributions again, but in a manner compliant with WP:EP.Deccantrap (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkenhead Social Justice Party[edit]

Hi there - I see that you created this deletion debate. I was wondering if you might consider withdrawing the nomination so that the page can just be redirect to Frank Field? The party is the creation of a sitting British MP; it has probably already received enough coverage for general notability (see here) andd presumably when Parliament resumes in September, then he will be an MP in the British parliament under its banner. If it's only him that ever stands for them then the party is probably best as a redirect to him; if it later stands other candidates then it can spin off into it's own page - but for now a redirect would be most appropriate. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Super Nintedo Chalmers} I had sumbitted the nomination because it's case of WP:TOOEARLY. Let give some time and let the party win some elections. We can create the page later too. In case of redirect, I am ready to withdraw my deletion but I'm new user and I don't know how to do it. Kindly help me to withdraw deletion. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh completely - but the article is useful to have as a redirect as people will want to start creating links to it; and by having a sitting MP it gains a notability, even if that is not yet independent of that MP. It may be that if other candidates and members are announced then it would be suitable to have its own article very soon.

The mechanism for withdrawal is at WP:WDAFD. You can either sign under your own nomination that it's withdrawn and let someone else close it, or you can follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zomato. 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. Repeatedly breaking infobox, despite explaining on my talk page DBig Xrayᗙ 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I don't understand which infobox are you talking about. You are reverting my well cited content which covered in more than 5 WP:RS and meets criteria of WP:Csection. I didn't do any vandalised edits here. Just search "Zomato beef and pork" and you will find numerous coverages in media. Are you associated with company? I think this is case of WP:COI because you don't want to add bad things about company. I am raising this issue in the talk page of company. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs, diff, diff . Please see and reveiw your edits properly before publishing. you are responsible for your edits. repeated breaking of infobox is considered vandalism. If you are unable to understand that you are repeatedly breaking the infobox, then it is probably a WP:CIR issue and you should stop making that edit again. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I understood the issue and apologising for it. It was actually reverted by one another user who removed my content On 11 August 2019, Zomato delivery executives in Kolkata protested against the company for forcing them to deliver beef and pork after their denial and request of not to do so for religious reasons.^[1] ^[2] They shouted in the streets of Kolkata, “Zomato ki Dadagiri nahi chalegi” meaning “Zomato’s bullying is unacceptable”.^[2] Hindu and Muslim delivery executives of company went on indefinite strike.^[3] ^[4] from the article. I am adding it and without touching infobox. Thanks for understanding. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169:, as a fellow Wikipedian, I advice you to not go after controversial or news edits often. You may find it stressful later. Instead focus on creative topics and subjects. It will make you editing experience more pleasant. You are yet to understand complex Wikipedia policies and cases in relation to controversial topics so better learn with simple topics and gradually enter complex topics. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'Zomato forces us to deliver beef, pork': Delivery executives threaten to go on indefinite strike". www.timesnownews.com. Retrieved 2019-08-11.
^ ^a ^b ""Forced To Deliver Beef And Pork": Zomato Riders Protest In Kolkata". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2019-08-11.
^ "'Zomato Forcing Us to Deliver Beef, Pork': Delivery Executives Go on Indefinite Strike in Kolkata". News18. Retrieved 2019-08-11.
^ KolkataAugust 11, Manogya Loiwal; August 11, 2019UPDATED:; Ist, 2019 11:54. "Zomato hits another controversy: Hindu, Muslim delivery boys to strike against delivering beef, pork". India Today. Retrieved 2019-08-11. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Resolved

— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DBigXray[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. You have new messages at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Mohammed_Zahur_Khayyam.
Message added 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xrayᗙ 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

striking old text[edit]

must be done appropriately per WP:STRIKE You should add another word at the end and underline it, instead of unstriking the old word. Please redo your edit appropriately. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill[edit]

Hello, as written in the article, the bill was tabled and later withdrawn. Now it is unlikely that the bill will ever come again (because Article 370 development). It has no importance left to have the article. Should we delete it? -Nizil (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this bill has importance same as of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill because this bill was too introduced in the Rajyasabha but God knows, why it was redrawn in Loksabha by Home Minister. I think it has historic importance and will add encyclopaedic content in political history of India, Kashmir and BJP. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was withdrawn because, after 370 development, there was no need to have separate reservation bill for J&K. The reservation acts of India already applies in J&K now. It is just another bill which will never come again and has no historic importance (because it had no impact on anything or will have in future).-Nizil (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m really confused about what to do! — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Amit shah at the end of his speech clarified that he is withdrawing the bill as it has been made redundant after revoking 370. I agree with Nizil. There is no need for this page and as an author you should put a G7 CSD (see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion) on it. regards--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary calling vandalism[edit]

Please explain how this is vandalism. Remember inappropriately calling someones edit as vandalism is a personal attack. read WP:NPA --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: please try to understand that I reverted edit which was added by user who did only one edit. The line was already there in first sentence of section, two fullstops were not required. I just removed it. You are moving in the direction of personal dislike for me. Read WP:Vandalism and WP:Civility. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to explain how it is vandalism. This was an "unhelpful" good faith edit, such edits should not be called vandalism again. How would you feel if someone called an unhelpful good faith edit from you as vandalism ? Accordingly you have now been warned to not repeat this. Also please explain what is uncivil in my comment above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will take care. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, please don't confront people and accept when you make mistakes and learn from it. Have good faith in other people. People point mistakes to make Wikipedia better. Unhelpful edits and Vandalism is very different things. You might have just replied that you made a mistake and will be careful in future. Be kind and prosocial. Please read WP:ADMIT, WP:HTBC and WP:WINNING. Be humourous. We are here to make Wikipedia better and collaboration is a key. Happy editing. -Nizil (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, please do not nominate articles of notable personalities for deletion. It is a wasting of time of other editors involved in deletion discussion. Consider this as a 'request' or 'suggestion' from me. --Gazal world (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that every editor is precious. They are also human like you. We do not want editors to drive off other editors by calling their good faith edits as vandalism. I am not sure why you stated that I am "moving in the direction of personal dislike for" you. If that is because of some recent disagreements we had on certain topics, then you should understand that Wikipedia is a community, We have varied opinions but we are not enemies. The Goal for everyone editing here is to build a better encyclopedia. If someone's goal is something else (like pushing a propaganda through wikipedia) then the community is smart enough to find it out and expel him by banning him from the site. Everyone makes mistakes, they are messaged on their talk page to remind them and make them relalize of the stuation so as to prevent it from re-occuring. I don't consider you an enemy or anything like that, a difference in opinion helps Wikipedia to maintain a WP:NPOV. I consider you precious considering that you are working to improve WP:INDIA articles, where we need as many hands as possible due to the sheer size of efforts needed to improve WP:INDIA topics. I hope you consider Nizil's advice and mine with a cool head. hoping for better collaboration in future. cheers.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill[edit]

The article Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The topic is not significant enough to have a separate article.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Flight112b (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AXS GUARD[edit]

Hi, is there a way to recover the contents of the recently deleted Draft:AXS GUARD? Many thanks ^{want to talk?} 10:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the administrators. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Gebruiker tvb: Please see, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Gazal world (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Vairagya[edit]

Vairagya is also there in Jain philosophy... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vairagya Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vairagya Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, this is not reliable source and second thing, you didn’t cite any source in your edit nor explained it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Sanat Kumara Chakravarti[edit]

Hello Harshil169. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sanat Kumara Chakravarti, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance. Whether he's notable is for WP:AFD to decide. Thank you. So Why 06:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of anti Jain sentiment[edit]

Hi there..., Sources...

http://dnasyndication.com/dna/article/dnahm25438

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-all-are-welcome-to-anoop-mandal-meet-except-jains-1311805 can these be helpful to know about the topic ?

This would be more helpful https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/kzm5bm/indian-cult-blames-climate-change-on-capitalists-and-jains-gains-thousands-of-followers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh.rsd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishabh.rsd: from the page, it is clear that you did WP:POVPUSH on anup mandal. You wrote claims as facts and it is not with Wikipedia's policy. Page will be deleted soon.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way 1user named GMG discussed this on my talk page and done with it see my talk pages section deletion of Anoop mandal for details... Rishabh.rsd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishabh.rsd: I request you to stay on wikipedia's policies. If someone had told you something then it doesn't mean it will become compliable with policies. And please read WP:NPOV before making such pages.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article created by me. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me. So Why 06:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion Talk of List of Jain Empires and Dynasties[edit]

You have a new message on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jain_Empires_and_Dynasties I have resolved the issues mentioned by you. You would consider to have the deletion tag removed.... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Elephant Paradigm[edit]

Hello, Harshil169,

Thank you for creating The Elephant Paradigm.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Almost all of the overview is quotation, even the parts not in quotes.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

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

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

See also:

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

Chetsford (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Naomi Bristow[edit]

I received your message and was unsure where to chat to you. I am not being financially compensated for completing this article and simply just wanted to write it. I am hoping that it will be approved by you or someone else as this is my first official article. I apologize for coming off as if I was being compensated though, but it do believe that all of my articles do include the information in the article I wrote... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinoGavv (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted[edit]

Hi Harshil169. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges in Ahmedabad[edit]

Category:Bridges in Ahmedabad has only three articles. Categories should be broad. Separate category for only three articles is not good and may get deleted and merged with parent category Category:Bridges in Gujarat unless more articles are added in it. You may create articles on other bridges of Ahmedabad with references. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nizil Shah I understand your concern and making articles on the Gandhi Bridge, Fernandez Bridge and Indira Bridge are my goals before completion of 2019. Let me give some time for it. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Always create articles first and then create categories because sometime we wanted to work on something which turns out not exciting enough to work later. :D Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AIB[edit]

Can you explain why you keep reverting to the vandal edits? (Khamba page doesn't exist)

Ketlag 16:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketlag (talk • contribs)

Swami chinmayanand article[edit]

Maybe you could have been more specific about what I added? I reported facts in a neutral tone with appropriate citations from leading news agencies. I edited the content to make it more neutral since your last comment. Boundbysynchrony (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boundbysynchrony: please read WP:RSUW for more explanation about WP: NPOV and WP:BLP. All details about arrest and allegations shouldn’t be there in the article when extensive details about person is not available. That makes page negative and this is not neutral thing. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Thanks for creating Jesus water miracle.

User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice enough! FWIW, this has been covered in a few journals and books as well; will add them, when I get some time :-)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

∯WBG^converse 18:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Jesus water miracle. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please remove the offensive lines. focus on the content DBig Xrayᗙ 11:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the offensive word. Please maintain WP:CIVILity in your talk page discussions. Such words will drive away all other contributors. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Please stop adding Controversy section to WP:BLPs. Read and familiarize yourself with WP:CSECTION and then self revert or copy edit everywhere you have added them. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, reception or reaction is something which comes after publishing some works. How recent controversies including notices can be added under reception title? Csection is discouraged but it is not prohibited. If possible then suggest some alternative heading.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, understand that what you have cited is opinion as it is essay. It is not prohibited to add controversies related to some people like their arrest, warrant is not PROHIBITED. If they are some thoughts or works then it may have reception but this is clear controversy and it will be okay to keep this.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that the most controversial human on earth Donald Trump does not have a controversy section. I hope you get the idea of what the existing community consensus is. Regarding what to do now? You should either merge it to an existing section eg career etc. Or get rid of that content. None of these articles u added a c section, deserve it. Rememberwe are here to build an encyclopaedia that gives information. Not here to judge people. We leave that to the reliable sources. Keep this in mind and avoid WP:WIKILAWYERING. That said, please go ahead and fix your edits if you lack time then you should self revert or I will revert it and dispute it. You have a chance to set things right. Choice is yours. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, I don’t know why Donald Trump doesn’t have controversy section but his controversies are possible to be included under some other heading. I’m not Wikilawyer and none of my recent edits were violation of basic policies of NPOV, Verifiability and Original Research. If there’s community consensus then it would have resulted in policy. I’m not going to revert my edits. If possible then let’s seek third opinion before doing any development on it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al right, thanks for your kind reply. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and make a case on the article talk page explaining why your edits must be added. You will be expected to follow the steps of WP:DR. Third opinion comes later on. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:Give me some time to do it. I’m currently on mobile and it’s difficult to edit pages on it. Wikipedia has no deadline. Thanks for cooperation.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to give you time to make a case on the talk page or give you time to self revert ? oh and BTW, why dont you try adding a C Section on Modi's article ? you should try that first. :D --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware that editors use Tu quoque in Wikipedia discussions like Sambit Patra use in TV debates. Now, if someone has used it then let me point out that I didn’t add Csection in Romila Thapar’s article. You should check who added it. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Good question. Even you can ask on the article talk page who added that, but in this thread lets steer clear of Whataboutery and focus on the C sections that "you added". I repeat. Are you asking me to give you time to make a case on the talk page or give you time to self revert ?--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t use whataboutism in discussion from my side. Anyway, I’m seeking time to include them into some another section or opening a case as there are four articles. Anyway, most controversial leader of India, Azam Khan, has controversy section. Will you take it forward to give reason of community consensus for it? :p — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in this edit summary you wrote Csection is discouraged and yet added a Controversy section ? It seems as if you agree that C section is inappropriate but a part of you is reluctant and adds it anyway. Regarding the time needed, sure please take all the time you need to think where to add them or whether to add them, but for now I am reverting it. you can recover your content from the article history whenever you have decided upon the right section to add that content. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notice[edit]

Hi Harshil. it is for a reason. please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness to understand why.--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unnecessary. I didn’t violate any policy. If I did then cite that particular policy, not some random essay. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notice never said that you violated a policy. If you think so then you have not read it properly. Read it again here. The expectation from the editor editing a BLP topic area is that they follow these 5 points strictly. See the expectations at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations.

If you violate a policy then you can be sanctioned directly as per AC-DS and you cannot claim ignorance that you were not aware of the AC-DS or WP:BLP policy etc etc. The DS Alert is logged on your talk page log, exactly for this reason. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azam Khan (politician); 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

per WP:BRD after you have been reverted you are not allowed to re-instate your content back without discussion. Specially if the content is not about the subject and negatively impacts the WP:BLP DBig Xrayᗙ 07:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of esic medical college to list of centrally funded institute[edit]

Esic medical college come under esi corporation under ministry of labour and employment and citation was given of the esi webpage.I dont see the need of the names to be removed Shyjucherian98 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Hi Harshil, based on your recent editing on Azam Khan and other political WP:BLPs I sense a strong WP:COI Please disclose your conflict of interest, (if any) as per our COI policy on the talk page. It seems to me that you are only adding negative and often incomplete content to these BLPs that appears to have been added disregarding our WP:NPOV policy making it look like an WP:ATTACKPAGE. When you are adding such content, remember to add updated information from both sides and provide a complete picture. Also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Continued violations would lead to sanctions and/or topic bans on you. Pinging @Nizil Shah:, @Tamravidhir:, @Titodutta: @Gazal world:, if they have anything to add, as they have participated on an earlier discussion on this talk page. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop biting new users and giving unnecessary warnings. You’re constantly reverting my edits since yesterday. I’m going to demand two way interaction ban with you. Adding controversy is NOT VIOLATING Wikipedia’s policy. I never added original research, used word alleged and wrote in a disappointing tone. Once ban will be enforced, I’m going to leave Wikipedia. You’ve problem with my every edits and you’re citing csection as policy while it’s just essay. It’s not wrong to add controversy, I smell your coi with those leaders. Ping anyone whom you want, I didn’t violate any policy. Everyone on Wikipedia is not here to please you. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the warnings or being warned then avoid making edits that leads to warning.
You are cordially invited to ask for sanctions and shoot yourself in the foot
I note that you have decided to ignore and skirt my direct question of disclosing your "Conflict of Interest", and replied with ad hominems--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I’ve conflict of interest then go and report to the noticeboard about it. I don’t have any coi with anyone and for your reminder, I added controversy section on both pages of Chinmayananda and Sadhvi Pragya but you reverted it. Go and report to admins, it’ll be better way to communicate, I explained all my side on yesterday by wasting energy and time and you’re still wikihounding me. Rather than biting me and reverting my all edits, report on noticeboard, I’ll answer there. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into Hrashil's edits, but Harshil your response is seemingly not cooperative. Please read this article on MeatBallWiki and WP:RAGE on Wikipedia. Tamravidhir (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamravidhir, as I said, you can refer to existing talk on my page to know what’s going on. DBigXray has reverted my edits on 7 pages by citing one essay as policy. I’m just tired of giving explanations to him about it, it’s better that he can go and report to administrators. Explaining admins will be better rather than explaining to him. He has problem with my content addition then he can complain. There’s no policy on Wikipedia which says that you can’t add negative news about BLP. I’ve added by citing reliable sources and thats is not attack page if subject itself is controversial then it’s not prohibited on Wikipedia to add it. It’s all written in WP:ATTACKPAGE, and again WP:CSECTION is NOT POLICY. I’ve added controversy with neutral words and disappointing tone, not in exciting tone and with my commentaries. If subject will explain their side then I’ll add it too but I don’t understand why DBigXray has so much problems with it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding negative news is not prohibited, but the sourcing has to be of top quality as it is a BLP, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Deliberate addition of one sided lines intended to show one side of the story, impact the balance of the article and makes it look like attack pages. regarding CSECTION, you are right, it is not a policy, but it also not a single person's blabbering. Take a look on the Wikipedia_talk:Criticism and the archives, you will find that it does have Consensus among many editors. I have objected to your addition of CSECTION and reverted you, you are now expected to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page.

Harshil, the first step in getting a resolution of a dispute or a problem is to discuss it with the concerned user. If the topic is related to an article, it is discussed on the article talk page, if the topic is about problematic editing, it is discussed on the user talk page of the concerned user. If the discussion does not resolve the problem, and the problematic editing continues, then the issue is taken to other avenues Admin/Arb noticeboard for admin action. As you might have guessed already, right now we are in the first stage informing you about the problematic editing with an expectation that you will be more careful about the issues I have raised. If you fail to address the concerns raised and continue it, a formal report on Admin/ Arbcom noticeboard (Since it is a topic under WP:DS) will be forthcoming. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section could have been tagged rather than removing all of it (the information comes from folklores, and I understand DBig has added required references). This seem to be undue weight. It could be summarised in a much better fashion. This again seems undue weight and that title is hideous. This is again undue weight and so is this. I understand why DBig has asked for a disclosure of conflict of interest. What's up with your series of addition of "controversy" sections to Samajwadi party politicians? Tamravidhir (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that much of the alternative narrative is not well elaborated and is skewed in favour of one side, being not neutral. I would also suggest you to first search for sources before deleting information as you did here. The citation needed tag is only two months old. Tamravidhir (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Tamravidhir

Just for your concern, check this and this one too. I’ve added controversy section on Sadhvi Pragya and Nithyananda too. I add it when someone is in News.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to one talk page. This is again unnecessary. Here this seems okay only because he is notable for his pseudoscience. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor one has to be very cautious while editing BLP articles. Please refer to WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPTALK, WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASP, and WP:VALID. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I stand strongly in favour of removing the "controversy" sections and merging the content elsewhere while also making its presentation more neutral. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed User:Tamravidhir. I tried to reason it with him on #Controversy section above. A c section is unacceptable on the BLP and Harshil did agree and copy edited them himself after the discussion. I thank him for understanding. But the real issue here seems to be COI. this c section is likely just a symptom of it. Which is why I started this thread. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I understand and echo your concerns. Tamravidhir (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Harshil, in response to your allegationso of wikihounding, please be aware that I have been editing and watching the Shitala article since 2012 [1] [2] after which I looked if there were more such cases when I found these massive insertions of negative content on BLPs specially Samajwadi Party politicians. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, don’t stop here. Dig my all contributions and you’ll find I’ve added such known controversies in the articles related to BJP and Congress politicians too. Even in case of Romila Thapar, I did so. In rest of cases, I didn’t create controversy section but just expanded it. Person with conflict of interest will never involve in discussing content with policies and editing some other articles. My contributions are vast varying from electrical engineering to psychology, book and logistics.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you take this opportunity to reconsider the quality of your edits or rather how you edit. That way, at least from the next edits onwards you may be more informed and experienced. Tamravidhir (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray Let's resolve the dispute and conflict here. Before adding any controversial and recent developments in WP:BLP, I will try to reach you if existing controversy section is not available. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil, I am glad to see your readiness to discuss and take advice/ feedback for future edits. I would request you to take time and go through the entire WP:BLP policy again even if you did it in past. Especially the sections that User:Tamravidhir pointed above ( WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPTALK, WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASP, and WP:VALID). Remember everyone of us had to read them at some point to understand the community consensus on dealing with these issues. Our edits on WP:BLP impacts the person in real life, so exceptional care has to be taken while adding negative coverage on these persons. They get allegations/accusations almost everyday, some of that even gets published in newspaper. per WP:NOTNEWS not everything that gets published has to be added into the articles.

Regarding the "controversy" section, I am glad that you understood that it can be avoided. Please refrain from adding any controversy section from now on. If you find notable content related to controversy you should always merge it with career/political career or similar section. If you feel that you are unable to find an alternate way, you should post that content on the talk page and ping me, Tamra, Nizl or Tito and seek advice on how to proceed with that content. Based on my ITN and DYK experience I would like to share that no article will get promoted to DYK or ITN as long as it has a controversy section, People will always point that and ask you to fix it before supporting these nominations. So that should give you some idea.

All of us are humans, we have our biases and point of view. If you feel strongly for or against a topic, it is best to avoid editing that article, as our personal biases would end up influencing the WP:NPOV of the article. A good example of these that you have seen for yourself are the Jain articles, you have already seen how strongly some of the users feel about the Jain articles and how they edit them. Almost all of those edits end up getting reverted or articles deleted. You have yourself rightly taken care of some of them. User:DiplomatTesterMan who has now become a good friend of mine had also faced problems (getting reverted/articles deleted) when he started, eventually, he learnt what is acceptable, and what not. Overtime, with enough experience, you will be able to understand what is acceptable and what is not, but it is a good idea to seek feedback on your edits on controversial topics in the initial days.--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is déjà vu for me :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus water miracle has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hello, Harshil169. Jesus water miracle, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from Abusive Language[edit]

Hi Harshil169, you have frequently used incendiary language, such as 'pathetic', while replying to posts on talk pages. Please refrain from using such abusive and unacceptable language as it is stated in the talk page guidelines article. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, either you don’t know English or you don’t know Wikipedia’s policies. You don’t even know how to sign after leaving message. Yes, sir pathetic is very abusive language. Thanks for informing and improving my English, sir. @DBigXray: will you say anything to this?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the tag and signed the message - thank you for the suggestion. Your phrases such as 'you don't know English or don't know Wikipedia policy' is another prime example of offensive phrases and verbiage. This can qualify as grounds for blocking based on harassment. Please be mindful of others. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES! PATHETIC is very abusive language per wikipedia's policy. If you have issued one more unnecessary warning to me then I'll go to report the admin for wikihounding and for personal attack. STOP RIGHT NOW!-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169, first of all Apollo1203, reminded you about TPG, this is not a warning, but a reminder. He is well within his rights to remind you of something that he feels you have violated. It should be clear to you by now, that Apollo1203 is offended by you [calling him as pathetic]. The word is inflammatory and is an ad hominem. Can you call your seniors or your supervisor, Pathetic ? I hope not. You will have to apply the same principles here. Can you avoid the use of that word and continue the discussion sans it ? I see no reason why you cannot drop it. Remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are policies. Since you are in a dispute your objective is to politely discuss it and not incite the other party into reminding you about WP:TPG. Please continue the discussion in a polite and formal tone without any expletives that may be considered offensive or inflammatory. If that is the way you talk and cannot maintain a formal tone in your conversation, without resorting to expletives then you should probably avoid getting into the disputes and let someone with a cooler head handle them. Also, if Harshil tries to take this case to admin board, Harshil will either be ignored or be asked to stay away from these pages, as he seems to lack the ability to discuss the dispute calmly. According to me the right way to handle this situation after Apollo1203 started this thread should have been to ~~Strike off~~ the offending word on the article talk page followed by a clarification here on the user talk, that you did not meant to insult him and are sorry if the word was interpreted as incendiary , also stating that you will not repeat this word in your discussion further. that could have been the end of this thread and you both could have continued the discussion on the talk page where it mattered. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Hayek[edit]

Hi. You reverted one edit by User: Mazewaxie. It was useful edit. Please read the edit summary provided by the editor before reverting. --Gazal world (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I changed it per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. But it's okay, I saw in your userpage that you are new to Wikipedia, so I understand that you didn't know about it. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the wikitext, only thing visible had no major changes. Therefore, I’ve reverted it. I still don’t get what changes s/he had done. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read here MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Basically I made the quotation marks "straight". --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Harshil169! You created a thread called What can be done if someone is citing essay as policy? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Kashmira Panache deleted?[edit]

I had submitted my first article to wikipedia and found that it was deleted !!!

Why was that?

Sayujsmenon (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169:, you should reply to this query.-Nizil (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: answer has already been given on the talk page of one admin who reinstated the content for improvement. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Jesus water miracle[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Jesus water miracle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MX (✉ • ✎) 21:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil, please fix them ASAP. please read and follow WP:CLOP as well. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Level 3 Tag for Disruptive Editing[edit]

Removal of tag indicates acknowledgment of the warning, and I wanted to clarify why I felt a Level 3 tag was indicated given your behavior on the Criticism of Swaminarayan sect article. On several threads, you continued to evade building consensus by not answering questions when asked by other users and to engage in uncivil behavior. While your profile page reads, "This user is new to Wikipedia," you are clearly no stranger to Wikipedia. You are an experienced user with an extensive knowledge of policies and authorship of several articles, and such behavior doesn't befit someone of your stature. When you initiated the sockpuppeting investigation against us, I can only imagine how frustrating it might have felt with several editors offering constructive criticism simultaneously. I hope we can continue to work together collaboratively on the criticism article. My questions are only intended to ensure we abide by WP policies. Moksha88 (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moksha88: Read WP:UP#CMT and WP:Warning is issued. First you’ve to issue caution, warning and then third level warning if rules have been violated after those two. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: you are correct. I should have started with a caution. I confused disruptive editing with vandalism where you can start with level 3. Thank you for clarifying. Moksha88 (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Criticism of Swaminarayan sect[edit]

Hello Harshil169. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Criticism of Swaminarayan sect, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Creator was not the only editor of this page. Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: There's very high pressure to give more POV of Swaminarayana. Good luck if the page can serve the interest as per heading. If it will then I also want to add the more criticism from Dayananda Saraswati and Makarand Mehta. But unexperienced editors are not agreeing on this and for them, this is violation of NPOV. Last good version is when Nizil removed the content. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from CASSIOPEIA[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. You have new messages at Divya Dwivedi's talk page.
Message added 05:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song used in Dandiya Raas[edit]

Hi, hope you had a fun filled Navratra. Can you help me identify this Gujarati song performed during the Dandiya raas. It had a very fast beat and was played at the last few minutes of raas. The chorus of the song had words :"rang de rang de rang de mohe rang de, rang de rang de rang de maiyaa rang de" --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray I’m assuming that you were not in Gujarat during raas. In outside Gujarat, no more Gujarati songs are used. Only Hindi songs with beats are used and even as per lyrics I can say the language is Hindi. The song is from Thakshak and was sung by Asha Bhosle.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't in Gujarat, but with Gujaratis. And all the songs played were hard core Gujarati, none of them Hindi. Can you translate the same in Gujarati ? Both with English alphabets and Gujarati text. I suspect the translation will be the same. No it is not Bhosle's song, although it does have the words. I have heard Bhosle's song before and I know the difference. After some digging the closest version In Hindi that I can find are [3] and even more closer [4]. Have you heard a Gujarati version of the song with this tune ? User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA by any chance have you heard it ?--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I never heard it in Raas. This is Hindi song. One Gujarati song which include Rang is "Kesariyo rang tane lagyo ena garba" meaning "garba because you are colored in the saffron". Gazal world can help you more in literature and songs of Gujarati in particular.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gazal world, all my hopes are now on you. The songs that were played in the raas were all Gujarati, it might be possible that in the end in the last 1 or 2 minutes, the singer might have included a Hindi song, but I dont know. Only someone familar with Gujarati songs can confirm that. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Sorry dude. I haven't heard anywhere the Gujarati song you talking about. But, I am familiar with that chorus and the song (first YouTube link) you cited above. Also, I never attend Navratri. If you can pinpoint some more details of the song, I would investigate. Best luck. --Gazal world (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be Nizil Shah had heard the song ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not heard of it. The song is likely a new remake of that song you mentioned in link. Large number of songs are re-tuned for Garba each year. It might be the new one. It is not popular in Gujarat yet. -Nizil (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, probably. That would explain why my searches did not get me anywhere. Nizil, Gazal world and Harshil, Thanks a lot for the kind reply. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: If you know some known song then you can search it too and you'll find non-stop playlist which may include this song. Give it a shot. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, but there is a problem. If I remember correctly the song before it was "dholida dhol re vagad" and this song is so popular that there would be thousands if not millions of playlists. IMHO finding the singer and asking her what song she sang would be easier

--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Divya Dwivedi[edit]

Hello Harshil169, Good work on the SPI issue! However, I did want to let you know that it was necessary to remove a comment on Talk:Divya Dwivedi‎. BLP guidelines do apply to Talk page comments as well, therefore unsourced comments have to be removed if potentially libelous.‎ JGHowes ^talk 13:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JGHowes: No worries. But I gave that comment when wworinger put forward an argument that I’m not allowing free speech on the Wikipedia and removing lines from the people who’re feeling threatened in time of rise of Hindu Nationalism in India. Same argument author (whose Wikipedia page was that) had put in several tv debates and websites. Thus, I guessed it. However, thanks for drawing my attention. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection....[edit]

...be so kind and read our protection policy if you have not done so already, especially the part about extended-confirmed protection. Keep in mind that protection essentially shuts out a large number of people who might want to edit the article, not only the ones disrupting it. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: LIBstick[edit]

Hello Harshil169. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LIBstick, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software and products, text is not really spammy . Thank you. So Why 09:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morari Bapu GA nomination[edit]

Hi, I found that you have nominated Morari Bapu for GA which is nowhere near GA quality and unlikely to pass. GA rules are very strict and they need high quality references and writing. The current article is largely supported by news references which are not considered high quality references. Please look at Manilal Dwivedi created by Gazal world for example which recently passed GA. It takes a lot of time to create and review. I suggest you to go through some GA quality articles to know what is wanted. Please withdraw nomination if you like. I am looking after you as a friend and helper. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw it. I read it in GA criteria that process is much liberal and reviewer helps in making the article good by suggestion. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have done some copyedit. Not the best but good enough. Reagrds,-Nizil (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA tags are given only to high quality articles. If you want feedback for improvement before nominating for GA or FA, see Wikipedia:Peer review. For copyediting (grammar, tone etc improvement), you can request at WP:GOCE. And at most basic level, a request for assistance is available at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. I am just pointing you to various help centres. You can always ask to me and others for assistance. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Indent[edit]

Dont reply to a thread with 2 Colons as you did on this page where I fixed it here. First reply should be only with one colon. See WP:INDENT for more examples.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConference India 2020: IRC today[edit]

{{subst:WCI2020-IRC (Oct 2019)}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConference India 2020: IRC today[edit]

Greetings, thanks for taking part in the initial conversation around the proposal for WikiConference India 2020 in Hyderabad. Firstly, we are happy to share the news that there has been a very good positive response from individual Wikimedians. Also there have been community-wide discussions on local Village Pumps on various languages. Several of these discussions have reached consensus, and supported the initiative. To conclude this initial conversation and formalise the consensus, an IRC is being hosted today evening. We can clear any concerns/doubts that we have during the IRC. Looking forward to your participation.

The details of the IRC are

Timings and Date: 6:00 pm IST (12:30 pm UTC) on 20 August 2019
Website: https://webchat.freenode.net/
Channel: #wci

Note: Initially, all the users who have engaged on WikiConference India 2020: Initial conversations page or its talk page were added to the WCI2020 notification list. Members of this list will receive regular updates regarding WCI2020. If you would like to opt-out or change the target page, please do so on this page.

This message is being sent again because template substitution failed on non-Meta-Wiki Wikis. Sorry for the inconvenience. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 06:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Titodutta (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Chakrapani at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rollback diffs[edit]

This, this, etc. Where is the blatant vandalism? Primergrey (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding first one, the parameters of templates were changed by user and thus, it was becoming invisible. Second one, unsourced and irrelevant statement, unsuitable for lead and found it in filter of likely badly. Third one, isn’t removing sources details is vandalism? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:Vandalism to see what is blatant vandalism and what is not. Primergrey (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Primergrey thanks for bringing this up. I agree that none of these deserve the use of WP:ROLLBACK. The first one was likely a edit test where the user was trying to fix the infobox. User:Harshil169 In such cases you should understand the problem, ask apology and agree to be more careful in future. Your response above shows that you lack an understanding of WP:VANDALISM. Please remember that if you continue to misuse rollback you will loose it in no time. I reckon that the next such thread will be on the WP:ANI so please take heed. If in doubt use Twinkle and add an WP:Edit summary.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Prakash[edit]

Hi. I've declined your G11 tag on this article as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satya Prakash closed as "keep". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai[edit]

On 26 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that water seeping from a statue of Jesus in Mumbai was initially called a miracle, but turned out to originate from a nearby overflowing drain? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first DYK. Cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Swami Chakrapani[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Swami Chakrapani at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Inter&anthro (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, Harshil169, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm happy to see you are now interested in writing about women. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of these sources you are alleging? They're all tabloids, for one thing. For another thing, no Catholic bishop worth his salt would come crowing "miracle" as soon as the thing is discovered, which is the kind of timeline you're portraying. It's not merely false, it's impossible. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See response on talk page. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Elizium23 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali[edit]

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.
Titodutta (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

@Titodutta: Happy Diwali and prosperous new year. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Thanks for creating Jesus water miracle.

User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice enough! FWIW, this has been covered in a few journals and books as well; will add them, when I get some time :-)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

∯WBG^converse 18:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weeping_Jesus_statue_in_Mumbai.

Winged Blades of Godric, if you have access to more RS, this would be a good time to take them out. Also ping User:Titodutta --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 at Women in Red[edit]

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143

Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:

New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month
Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest

Editor feedback:

Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles
Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Regarding your edits to the page 'Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji'[edit]

Hello Mr. Harshil, I see that you have made changes to the newly created wikipedia page for the subject 'Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji'. The reasons you have stated for making those edits are completely false. Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami is the subject's complete name, and you cannot alter that. The international Media and newspapers, and even New York State Senate recognizes him with this name, so it is absurd on your part to change the title of the page. Please discuss with me if you have any issues with the content of the page. I would be happy to present all the facts to you. The page has been created after doing a thorough research, and nothing mentioned in there is promotional.

Please enlighten me with the concerns you have with this page. Thanks !Princehr999 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Princehr999: First read WP:NCIN and WP:HONORIFIC before giving threats and calling someone’s edits as false. Also, read WP:Civility. Calling someone as absurd will block you from editing. Be aware from using this language of street on Wikipedia. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for enlightening me. Looking at the response you have given, it feels like you are the one who is threatening me, and not the other way around. Also, I have read all those reference pages you have pointed me to, but nowhere I could find any proper reason for the edits made by you. I again humbly request you to point me out the exact portions of the article which seem promotional to you. Also, please don't confuse facts with promotion. And as far as the 'undisclosed financial stake' is concerned, it is you who is behaving like a paid editor. Please don't use your authority to purposely degrade an article. I will be extremely grateful to you if you would rather sort this issue with discussion rather than editing the page directly. This page has been approved by one of the experienced Wikipedia admins, and he didn't find anything promotional in this. Thanks and regards !Princehr999 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Princehr999: Person who accepted was not administrator and Wikipedia isn’t of one person. It’s about community. If you’ll continue editing Kumar Swami’s article without disclosure of WP:COI then I’ll report it to WP:ANI about this behaviour. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, it is about community. But you should explain to me how can this page be placed for deletion ? You did not even spare ten minutes to read the article and suddenly come up with a bright idea of getting it deleted ? If you have any personal problem with the subject in question, then please don't bring that problem here. Wikipedia is for presenting facts. You can't simply use your editing privileges to fulfill you personal motives. The page has been reviewed and moved into the article space by a Wikipedia expert, so what authority do you or me have to simply place it for deletion ? Did you even go through the references before calling it as promotional ?

I again request you to please stop editing the page for no explicit reason other than personal hatred. Thanks ! Princehr999 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Princehr999:Your reporting and habit of talking is not normal for me. I’ve reported your account to one administrator. If nothing will happen then I’ll raise an issue on WP:ANI on tomorrow about this conflict of interest. You still have time to disclose that who’s this person for you? Are you connected with him? How you got his photograph which you claim to have copyright?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any copyright over this photo. I dropped a personal mail to the organization run by the subject to release a picture. The copyrights are with the organization and not me. Regarding my connection, I know this person through newspapers and media. And after doing proper research I collected all facts. May be I should report your behavior to some administrator as well. Because you are being very negative in this. Princehr999 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Princehr999: yeah, yeah Go and report me.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the criticism section needs to present both the views. Views of media as well as view of subject. Otherwise it counts as a defamatory attack if you are not allowing to present both views in a neutral way. Please go through WP:NPOV. Princehr999 (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t drop messages here. Go on talk page and open discussion. There’s one policy namely WP:SYNTH and according to it, you’re not allowed to do synthesis. Sources you had cited has NO MENTION of FIR and all these things. Is that clear?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the article page, and apologies for not being nice to you before. Thanks and regards !Princehr999 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gurudas Dasgupta[edit]

On 3 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gurudas Dasgupta, 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. Kees08 (Talk) 20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

good work here. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DBig. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudheshwar Mahadev[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudheshwar Mahadev

Thanks for AfDing this. Even if some of the participants have disagreed with you, you should know that you did the right thing here. I made this comment to make sure the result of this AfD does not discourage you in any way. IMHO the quality of participation at AfDs have deteriorated. So this should be taken as an example to join actively in AfDs with more enthusiasm. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Swami Chakrapani[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Swami Chakrapani at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LEFTPEDIA[edit]

Good to see you, here!

Please stop Godric, who is propagating anti-Hindu stuff.

Please keep a watch on these articles, all of which, he has completely rewritten:-

Yellapragada Sudershan Rao
Nangeli (He is yet to revert the neutrality tag)
OpIndia
Meenakshi Jain
N. S. Rajaram
David Frawley
Michel Danino
Subhash Kak
Swaraj Prakash Gupta
BGR-34
Demolition of the Babri Masjid
Koenraad Elst
Swapan Dasgupta
François Gautier
Vivekananda Kendra
Madhu Kishwar
Voice of India
Chandranath Basu
S. Irfan Habib
Rajendralal_Mitra#Criticism
P. N. Oak
Amar Chitra Katha and Chetan Bhagat he's inserting a lot of critical sources without balance
Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana

There are many others. 122.15.82.83 (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WBG had not declared his conflict of interests - he knows a lot many left and ultra-left teachers and scholars whom he cites, very personally. Manisha Basu (see Swapan Dasgupta/Francois Gautier's article) is quite acquainted to him. Also, he is a pro-trans-activist and re-wrote Demet Demir .... 122.15.82.83 (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) LOL - still I must thank you, for having brought my attention to Nangeli, which was indeed skewed towards a part. POV ... ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: among the listed articles, most of seems neutral and balanced for me, expect one or two. I’ll discuss issues on talk page once I’ll be free. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV PUSH[edit]

Hi Harshil, thanks for this revert. Note, however, that "WP:POV pushing" is considered derogatory or at least condemning. Moreover, newbie editors will have no clue what "POV" means. It is better to say "[[WP:POV]]" with a wikilink. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. But it was indeed an push of one POV, so, I described it as it is. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might. But it is impolite. So, reserve it for when you really want to be impolite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Harshil just mentioning "per WP:NPOV" in the edit summary should suffice. also remember to warn the user using twinkle. You can use Level 1 NPOV template. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Winged Blades of Godric[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. You have new messages at Gazal world's talk page.
Message added 07:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

∯WBG^converse 07:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Your addition to Tejasvi Surya has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Kindly see the relevant talk page discussion. SerTanmay (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See response on talk page.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Anil Nayar[edit]

Hello Harshil169. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Anil Nayar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 11:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I removed spammy language which were not backed by citation. Article's length has been reduced by 50% now.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

You need to learn what Ad Hominem is - see the quote by Jhochman on my user page. And if you still believe something is a PA, answering with a PA is not the solution. Why are so many people determined to make every RfA a dramafest, and then complain that we don't have enough admins? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2019 (utc).

I didn't expect you to respond to this, the question was rhetorical. It is sufficient that you have read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Draft:Alien Interloper[edit]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Alien Interloper. I do not think that Draft:Alien Interloper fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because not even close to Patant nonsense. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Alien Interloper for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Dagana4 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Moksha88 (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DBigXray[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. You have new messages at User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#This_user_has_again_started_harassing_me..
Message added 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DBig Xrayᗙ 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep calm[edit]

Please keep calm on English wiki. You are amazing contributor on Gujarati and Marathi Wikipedia. Edward will be blocked.-Rutvik P Shah (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for one week for disruptive editing, including WP:NPA, retaliatory abuse of process, failure to collaborate, and accusing other editors of misconduct in content disputes. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 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).

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

Request reason:

User Bbb23 was involved administrator in whole this process. First user Moksha88 had reported about me to their talk page and this admin adviced them to take it to ANI and I replied long rebuttal of their complaint. My complaint has not been even reviewed and this user has blocked me for misconduct. For alleged NPA, I already apologised here and that user said I used name-calling for them without any type of differences on my talk page. For alleged disruptive editing, I have collaborated on the talk page but accounts never responded back on the Wikipedia. There have been no reason or difference have been provided to me in which they can say that I abused the process. Again, my SPIs were never rejected thoroughly, checkuser already checked them and said they’re not related. I see WP:Duck behaviour in edit warring and open SPI with differences. See this was wrong but user has to check log,this was true and they were blocked indefinitely and this was also true and both are blocked. My most of the SPIs have been true and thus, I filed it here. Hereby, I am requesting uninvolved administrator to review the request. I never alleged anything without any type of differences. I clearly provided differences when different users started reverting my content but no response on talk page. Administrator was clearly involved in whole process and he was informed very much ago by complaitant. No differences have been given in which I’ve abused the process of Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Morari Bapu and confirm where I abused process or failed to collaborate with different users. I clearly followed DR, replied on talk page, sought 3O from Nizil Shah and clearly it was in favor from me. Then suddenly, canvassing of discussion started. Issuing DS aware notice has been even considered as Uncivilised behaviour. Different users came, reverted and never responded back on the talk page. I’ve even requested for page protection for disruptive editing so that new users can get themselves into consensus building rather than reverting badly and in fact, it was even accepted and Morari Bapu is fully protected now, then how can I abuse the process? If WP:Duck conditions are met and all of them are listed in the SPI then how it can be accusation of misconduct without any proof?

Decline reason:

You have provided no evidence to substantiate your allegation that Bbb23 acted while involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:12, 18 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Here’s what the user with whom I’ve been conflict have been posted on their talk page. Again, Bbb23 was the one who had archived SPI report filed by me which was unsuccessful. As far as I’ve seen on Wikipedia, administrators generally don’t take any action like giving rights or blocking, if they have been given instructions by filer on their talk page and they guided to appeal. If this is not considered as involved, though widely accepted practice, then I apologise for calling it so. I am again requesting to read comments of Ms Sarah Welch and Nizil Shah (which I sought as part of 3O, both have more than 30000 edits) in which they’ve mostly supported posting of content on Talk:Morari Bapu. I really apologised for NPA and for DS notice, I already explained about it how to remove it and avoid it in future in my rebuttal. Plus, point to be noted is Sara and Nizil have responded my ping. Why all other users like Apollo1203, ThaNDNman224, ActionJackson09 (all who have edit count less than 700, one has 90 and one has around 200;all are editing articles just related to BAPS and Swaminarayan and contributing occasionally) came directly, without any ping and without any talk page message, on talk page to comment and just to remove content? That was the reason behind calling to check their email log and I already explained. If I’m not following DR steps then why would I have pinged editors for 3O?

Decline reason:

Suggesting ANI as an avenue to raise a concern does not make Bbb23 involved in the dispute, nor does simply archiving an SPI case. More to the point, you've provided no reason the initial block was in error. I'm not convinced the conduct wouldn't re-occur immediately if the block is lifted. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:29, 19 November 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.

Comment[edit]

Harshil169: Please take a week off. I saw your msg on my talk page before you got blocked, reviewed the disputes you are in again, felt you are on your way to getting blocked (I am also concerned about a few others in dispute with you). In other words, I support Bbb23's block and rationale. I will post a brief note on Talk:Moraru Bapu, which you and others may consider. There and elsewhere, please do so without the NPA violations and disruptive battleground approach, which is a big drain of time for you all, others and admins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: for NPA violation, apology have been spught previously and I never violated 3RR rule or reverted their edits blindly. I was working on that article long ago by inserting references and increasing length. Due to blanking by various IPs and users, I requested full protection and which have been successful. I just request you to check history of Morari Bapu. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a vacation for a week instead of keep arguing. I see that you do not put the end to the argument easily ever. It is not good for you. Even if you believe you are innocent, take a break. Reflect on what you did wrong, not what others did. I have been advising you to improve your behavior and staying away from controversial topics which you ignored. I had already seen that you are risking a block and advised you yesterday on my talkpage to stay away from the heat. I advise you to stop asking for unblock and go through all your past work and comments as well see other peoples' approach to dispute on talkpages of controversial topics. Reflect on them and think what you could have done better and what you could have avoided. I again request you to stay away from controversial topics after your unblock and focus towards uncontroversial topics. And please learn to collaborate rather than confront and argue. Cool down and relax for now. See you back after a week. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: I’ll take break. But please handle the user which I mentioned here. He’s constantly doxxing me, attacking me, filing void reports, trying to login in my twitter and Wikipedia accounts. If this type of stalking and behaviour continues then I’ve to stop contributing to even non-controversial topics.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, take a break. --Titodutta (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor adds an external link or info about you that you have not revealed on wikipedia, that's most likely a violation of our WP:Outing policy. This includes connecting you to any Twitter accounts or Tweets when you have not done so. I suggest you remove the info, and immediately email oversight to have the revisions suppressed. It's a bad idea to draw attention to it by yelling about it from a noticeboard or elsewhere. From what I saw at AN, there seems to be an external link added to a page which was only recently removed by the editor who added it, but is still in the revision history. I considered emailing about this myself but it would be far simpler if you did since you are better aware of what info you have publicly shared on Wikipedia and what you haven't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if someone is trying to login to your Twitter account, that's not something we can help you with. I suggest you contact Twitter or more likely the police, if you feel it's necessary. Note that they will likely expect strong evidence of a connection to any specific person. You just saying it is because you're in a dispute with them isn't likely to cut it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December events with WIR[edit]

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147

Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:

New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world
Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest

Editor feedback:

Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles
Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

You are a valued contributor. Stay positive and always be your best self!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDACTED[edit]

Please see and follow this WP:REDACTED--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, 01:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Swami Chakrapani[edit]

Hello, Brihaspati. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Swami Chakrapani at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morari Bapu[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. This is a level 2 warning with regards to calling out another user on Morari Bapu talk page. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Actionjackson09: include difference first when I accused someone of bad faith.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accused Apollo of responding on the talk page without reading what other users had written. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/928015905

That comment does not justify your warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "'Zomato forces us to deliver beef, pork': Delivery executives threaten to go on indefinite strike". www.timesnownews.com. Retrieved 2019-08-11.

[:0-2] ""Forced To Deliver Beef And Pork": Zomato Riders Protest In Kolkata". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2019-08-11.

[3] "'Zomato Forcing Us to Deliver Beef, Pork': Delivery Executives Go on Indefinite Strike in Kolkata". News18. Retrieved 2019-08-11.

[4] KolkataAugust 11, Manogya Loiwal; August 11, 2019UPDATED:; Ist, 2019 11:54. "Zomato hits another controversy: Hindu, Muslim delivery boys to strike against delivering beef, pork". India Today. Retrieved 2019-08-11. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]