User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Crimea

Hi

If you attempt to launch a RM to move Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast to Kherson Oblast (Russia) it will be probably be rejected. So we need a solution to harmonise the titles on a way or in the other. Panam2014 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't intend a RM, but I also realised the need for harmonisation, especially because many editors, in their (understandable) support to the Ukrainian side, seem to have forgetten about basic tenets of Wikipedia, like WP:NPV. — kashmīrī TALK 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
So what is the solution? A global solution need to be reached. The current statu quo is bad. Panam2014 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Either we make an RfC or else ask for the reverse renaming for Kherson so that the decision is harmonized at the end of the discussions. Panam2014 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yep, an RfC seems like a good idea. — kashmīrī TALK 20:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting my contributions

I find that your wholesale removal of my contributions, along with a templated stop sign and a threat of a ban to be grossly over the top. If you wish to edit my contributions you are more than able to do so, however to remove them completely is disrespectful. Your claim that I have a pro-Ukrainian bias is nonsense. As I have given the Russian flown and operated Ka-52 a glowing review. It is currently being used to destroy Ukrainian operated tanks. I have always sought to give as much time to what Russian officials say as do Ukrainian officials. You also acted sarcastically when I quoted from an anonymous soldier. Perhaps you aren't aware but most Ukrainian soldiers use nom de guerre for security reasons. So am I supposed to use a call sign? How many anonymous sources, such as "unnamed US officials", appear in modern journalism today?

As to the Russian usage of a tank for a VBIED that was cited by CNN and the ISW have mentioned it in their Assessment for 20 June stating: "Footage published on June 19 indicates that Russian forces conducted a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) attack on a Ukrainian position in an unspecified location in Zaporizhia Oblast with an infantry fighting vehicle loaded with explosives.[31] These VBIED attacks are likely incredibly imprecise (as they reportedly cannot be steered, driving straight forward until detonated by remote control unlike more advanced VBIEDs used by some actors in other conflicts) and are meant to disrupt Ukrainian operations more than cause actual damage to Ukrainian forces."

Your removal of it flys in the face of several mainstream sources reporting on it. Your definition of trivial is off the mark, particularly if this is repeated. The ISW are widely regarded as being the best observers of the ongoing conflict. With their reports widely cited on the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive page. As to my sources I usually offer two sources for what I have posted and I am going on what the article says. In a word I am doing what the rules of Wikipedia say to avoid copyright, I am rephrasing the words. If it says that so many Ukrainian tanks were blown up I will post that on the relative Wikipedia page. I have also posted about Ukrainian involvement in the Nord Stream 2 explosion. Posting the evidence for Ukrainian involvement in this attack, how do you see this as pro-Russian?

You are using a machete when you would be better served using a scalpel. Jjmclellan82

No, it's not about using ISW as a source. It's that these are technical articles created to describe a given piece of equipment from a military point of view. To achieve this, they need to based on reliable secondary sources, ideally from the defence sector. These articles should not be turned into a war diary nor into a place to collect anonymous opinions. We don't do this for equipment lost by belligerents in other wars (Vietnam war, Iraq war, etc.). — kashmīrī TALK 08:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Re. bias, I went through your contributions and I believe the warning was fully justified. — kashmīrī TALK 08:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand your point about war diaries and will keep it mind in future. I will also keep you comments in mind about military equipment and sources in future. These are things I can work with. I reject your position on my bias however we can agree to disagree. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Kherson

Hi do you have a solution? Panam2014 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly ok to link to redirects. We do it all the time, e.g., WP:N, WP:NPOV, etc. Read MOS:REDIR and WP:NOTBROKEN. — kashmīrī TALK 00:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Koo.svg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ryanair.svg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

  • For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Reveret 99 edits

you reverted 99 of my edits, can you elaborte a bit on why? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I just left you a message on your Talk. — kashmīrī TALK 13:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

My signature

Hi kashmiri! I have changed my signature. Sorry for the trouble. Cheers! — Akshadév™ 💬 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 16:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I really like your signature though! The coolest I've ever seen. :) — Akshadév™ 💬 16:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! :) — kashmīrī TALK 17:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the information removed from the page bhagwa dhwaj

Dear Kashmiri,

I am yamantakks, the person who wrote all the information you just REVERTED on the page of bhagwa dhwaj.

You wrote the reason of being not helful and blamed that it has vague claims of no informational values. If you feel any thing such like that, it would be polite enough of you to either raise that point in Talk page:Bhagwa dhvaj or edit that information ONLY.

For now I am reverting your edits on the page.

We may continue the discussion on the talk page.

Regards

Yamantakks
Yamantakks (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yamantakks. You are a new editor and I understand well that a reversal of your work may feel frustrating. However, please keep in mind that Wikipedia, as a collaborative project, is governed by certain policies and procedures. For instance, most text must be sourced to a reliable source (yours was not). Then, we have a Manual of Style that standardies the use of headings, length of sections, capitalisation, and so on (you disregarded it). Finally, the text should be written in a good informational style.
I also suggest you read WP:BRD. Regards, — kashmīrī TALK 09:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why delete model links?

Good morning Kashmiri. You have removed links to model from various pages. I have read your MOS:OL, but do not find that it applies in this case. In fact, your MOS:OL implicitly recommends linking a common word such as London if the context is unclear, such as distinguishing London, Ontario from London, England.

If you still think the model links on the various pages are unnecessary, then I challenge you to explain, in one short sentence, why for children a model is a toy train, for teenagers a model is a beautiful woman, for computer scientists a model is a set of semantic definitions, for mathematicians a model is a vector space, and for biologists a model is a laboratory fruitfly.

If you are able to meet this intellectual challenge and produce a short explanatory sentence, then I propose we can add your short explanatory sentence to all those pages where you have deleted the Model link.

I suspect however that you (and most younger Wikipedians, especially those who do not speak English as a first language) cannot meet this challenge because the conceptual foundation is unclear to you, unless you read the model page. Hoping for your cooperation (and thanks for implementing the present perfect tense grammar correction, by the way).109.146.228.155 (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for evaluating my age. Shall I feel flattered?
I will not venture into defining the term model – other Wikipedians have done it better than I ever would. However, this multitude of meanings is precisely the reason why the term needs not be linked to. As MOS:OL explains, the primary purpose of wikilinking is to clarify a possibly unclear term to the reader; not to confuse them with a multitude of meanings. If in your opinion these articles would benefit from a further clarification of the term model, a wikilink to Conceptual model feels more apt to me.
By the way, I suspect that you (like many of those who speak no other language than English) aren't fully getting that semiotics is well-developed also in languages other than English, and that the term model, itself a French loanword, may represent precisely the same meanings also in a number of other languages. — kashmīrī TALK 10:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your praise. But please do not misrepresent my comment on age and language - I was referring to potential Wikipedia users, not to you. I agree to your solution - please go ahead and implement your new proposal of placing Conceptual model links in all the articles you have "vandalised" (i.e. where you have deleted Model links). It will be a bit of work, but it will prove that you are being sincere.
For anyone else reading this: please note that Kashmiri's comment on French counterparts of "model" is only half the story - anyone interested in the French and German linguistic aspect should consult the disambiguation page discussion on the Model talk page. It is a convoluted subject, which has still not been appropriately solved in Wikipedia/Wikidata due to technical problems.86.136.198.20 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't intend to prove anything to you, especially my sincerity. Please feel free to go ahead and add the links if compliant with MOS.
Re. the fact that languages are not 1:1 mirrors, I believe that anyone else reading this will be fully aware of it. That doesn't change the fact that the equivalent of the English term model can be found in many languages with a similar range of meanings.
By the way, it's better to avoid calling a good faith editor, a vandal, even jokingly, as it can be easily misunderstood by an admin. — kashmīrī TALK 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  —Michael Z. 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahmood Rasooli

Please comment on my article nomination.Mahmood Rasooli - Mahmood Rasooli (nomination)

I have used reliable sources in my article and reliable sources have been used in all my explanations. And someone gives unacceptable reasons and wants to delete my article.

I want you to tell me what you think about my article.

(This text was written with Google Translate.) AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Expend4bles

Hello. Please revert your move per the second bullet point at the top of WP:RM. This title has been stable for nearly four months and should not be moved without discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of "stable" - the name that was in use for the preceding 20 months and has received wide support at two Talk discussions appears much more stable than your recent controversial version. Basically, you performed a move against consensus. That's not how we work collaboratively on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 23:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, Kashmiri

I sent a couple of messages out. Yes, I've been called a Bronx redneck before, lol.

Bottom line, my point was to say that a fool gives a foolish statement. Example: Oppose Clearly not ready to be an admin. Sportsfan 1234 That rubbed me the wrong way. No explanation etc. BTW, Josh got me to join Wikipedia. I felt like a family member was being slapped in the face. Yes, I may come across a bit rough, but I'm not out to bully anyone.

Just want to be on speaking terms with everyone here. Sorry for the confusion.

Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Bengali Muslims

hi I would like to know why the edits of Pohela Boishakh and other folk cultural festivals and cuisine getting deleted? 2400:2412:44C1:7D00:354A:3555:9ECF:CFB2 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Indic Script

Regarding this edit. WP:NOINDICSCRIPT is restricted to India, but this thing is associated with BEngali Hindus who are also found in Bangladesh natively where this policy isn't applicable. See Bharatanatyam article for Tamil Nadu. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: WP:NOINDICSCRIPT applies to all articles falling within the purview of WikiProject India (including subprojects). The article Dhunachi is not listed as governed by WikiProject Bangladesh, hence WP:NOINDICSCRIPT applies fully. Hope this clarifies. — kashmīrī TALK 20:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
OK.. Perhaps the same need to be done in Bharatanatyam as well as many of the southern dance forms listed here. Please do the honors. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Bharatanatyam is also under WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Dance which may have different rules re. lead section and inclusion of original names, so the matter should be consulted with those projects first. Please feel free to go ahead – I regret I'm unable to dedicate much time to Wikipedia at the moment. — kashmīrī TALK 21:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Arras school stabbing

Hello. I'm trying to understand this revert. In what way does including the widely-disseminated name of the accused invidual violate BLPCRIME? I think this actually concerns WP:BLPNAME instead, actually. BLPNAME states When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. However, the name does seem to have been widely disseminated, and does not seem to have been intentionally concealed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I specifically meant BLPCRIME, which states that Wikipedia cannot name people in any way whatsoever that would suggest any criminal wrongdoing on their part, unless they have been found guilty by a court of law. — kashmīrī TALK 19:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri - That is not what BLPCRIME says. We have certainly named accused people (cf. Murder of Ahmaud Arbery) especially when WP:RS have published the name widely. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I can only refer you to the long discussion held at Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In short: no, there's no consensus on naming innocent people (everyone is innocent unless convicted) as supposed criminals. — kashmīrī TALK 15:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi from Anuj823

Hello Dear, I have seen that you have dishonored the ethical update where I have removed a dead-link and given the helpful relevant link which contribute to Wikipedia authenticity yet you have removed the link which has Ramcharit Manas authentic version PDF. please explain me your concern and disagreement and also let me know if a dead-link is good for Wikipedia or an genuine attribute is good for Wikipedia. Reagrds Anuj823 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of promotional links. Read WP:NOT. Besides, Ramacharitamanasa is out of the article's scope - in case you did not notice, the subject is Dasharatha. — kashmīrī TALK 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have very well noticed the subject, and no promotional link was given. I have just replaced the dead-link and given the Ramcharit Manas Pdf link to the source. its not a promotion. please do not try to enforce your monopoly on a platform like Wikipedia. Vandalism already made losses to the cause, pls don't be biased. Anuj823 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Anuj823 Please read WP:ELNO, esp. point 13. — kashmīrī TALK 18:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey Anuj, don't give external PDF link. Article has sufficient mention of Ramayana and which then leads to Ramcharitmanas article. Its fine! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 12:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Expendables 4 move review

Hi, thanks for your contributions. A quick heads up: when commenting in a move review, you should disclose that you were involved in the requested move discussion. See WP:MR. 162 etc. (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

This use of rollback was inappropriate. Please don't do it again. Your other edits in your compaign against Nupur Sanon (actress) and its creator were wrong (you should not presume that an article will be deleted just because you've tagged it), but at least they were accompanied by an edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 The article looks like a recreation of Nupur Sanon, speedily deleted multiple times, by an account that suddenly got active 10 days ago. Recreation under a different title is simply an attempt to game the system. — kashmīrī TALK 16:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's possible you're right, but you can't go about it in the manner you did. Two of your speedy tags were unwarranted. You can't WP:A10 an article based on a deleted article. The article was not in the least promotional, hence your WP:G11 was out of line. The WP:A7 had some merit but I was reluctant to delete it on that basis because it wasn't obvious enough to me. If you believe the subject is not sufficiently notable, use AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If you suspect sockpuppetry, the appropriate venue is WP:SPI. You don't submit CSD requests or oppose technical moves just because you have a hunch. That hunch needs to be backed up by checkuser evidence. Polyamorph (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I know SPI quite well (with due respect, I spent there much more time than you), and I decided not to file a report as evidence was insufficient. However, I saw good evidence of an attempt to game the system, which I reacted to, even though for you it was only as an innocent technical move request. Just accept that our opinions may differ here. — kashmīrī TALK 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If you have evidence, submit it to SPI. Otherwise you cannot cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Your justification that the article is unambiguous promotion is simply untrue. You have an admin above telling you the same, some humility would not go amiss. Polyamorph (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Polyamorph Have you read WP:KETTLE? [1] — kashmīrī TALK 11:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me? Polyamorph (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see. A single passing comment about SPI is a far cry from submitting CSD requests and opposing a user's technical moves because you have judged they are a sock. You did not need to respond to my comment there either. Polyamorph (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not being honest? I opposed not because they were a sock but because the article was repeatedly recreated after being regularly deleted as promotional. Oh, and mine was a passing mention while your entire comment was about casting an aspersion on a new account, so no point digging. — kashmīrī TALK 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You are the one digging here I'm afraid. I am not dishonest, I made a single comment about SPI, if you think that's some kind of gotcha then woohoo for you, but it doesn't detract from your earlier poor judgement, which you seem unable to accept. Anyway, goodbye. Polyamorph (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yep, gotcha. WP:KETTLE. Have a good day. — kashmīrī TALK 12:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Polyamorph Socks are often recognised and blocked without a formal SPI, as has now happened with the account in question[2] More humility won't harm you. — kashmīrī TALK 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
So you right about the sock, congratulations? That still doesn't excuse the CSD or detract from anything me and @Bbb23: said. Please don't ping me again. Polyamorph (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You are over 1RR with your latest reverts. This has been discussed before User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 6#CT alert. You are edit warring in a ds/sanction area.  // Timothy :: talk  09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  09:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional links at the bottom of articles ("see also" section)

Kashmiri, what's the rule on listing additional links at the bottom of an article? Does it have to be by alphabetic order (completely useless) or by relevancy with the subject (practical and logical)?

ICE77 (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@ICE77: The Manual of Style says, The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically. (MOS:SEEALSO). It doesn't say that you put whatever subject you like at the start and have a different sorting for other items.
I mentioned the guideline already in the first revert of your edit.[3] — kashmīrī TALK 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about placing what I want at the top of the list. It's about placing at the top what is most relevant which is exactly what the rule says: "sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter)". I am sure everybody agrees that having "Bishops in the Catholic Church" on the first line and "List of popes" on the seventh line is pointless since alphabetic order is secondary to relevancy (logical). If there was a statistical way to track how many people click on the first or the seventh link I am sure what the result would be and that would prove the point. Nobody cares about alphabetic order and this is not my opinion. It's logical. It's practical.

ICE77 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

For you, a chronological list of Catholic popes might be most important. But another reader might be more interested to read more about papal names, the pope in the Coptic Church, or go straight to the list of canonised popes. Please don't measure others by your own yardstick.
That's also why MOS:SEEALSO doesn't tell editors to sort list items "by importance". — kashmīrī TALK 20:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I bet there must be tons of people who care to read about about the pope in the Coptic Church.

ICE77 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's just follow the guideline, ok? — kashmīrī TALK 10:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the hassle. This is about the RfA of 0xDeadbeef. Regards Fermiboson (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Beeblebrox. I could not follow the case due to RL commitments, but I've just read the outcome and I'm still in shock. — kashmīrī TALK 22:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello Kashmiri, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@MJL Thank you. I could not follow it, being sucked in by RL commitments, but the outcome of the situation was a shock to me. — kashmīrī TALK 22:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Localgiving.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Localgiving.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Localgiving.svg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles Check

Can you please check the below articles as most of them have sock puppet i.e. kalbhoj/kalnemi live version.

1. Ramananda

He was blocked but his edits are live.

Hemraj108 (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Account seems to have been created only to revert another editor. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah, good work with the SPI. But this is still weird. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Hemraj108 (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have one previous account which was blocked because at that time I dont know about rules for the South Asia articles set by the admins , now I randomly checked the articles in past I worked on & previously I was on an edit war with this editor in one article related with caste/surname so I am able to find this editor with his sources & links as I save them in my system in excel file. That's why I created this account as admins due to edit load some times left the sock puppet edits live. Hemraj108 (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Hemraj108 I suggest you read and follow WP:CLEANSTART. The community is very sensitive to people violating their blocks/bans, and some admins might block your account for the mere admission of editing in violation of your block. — kashmīrī TALK 10:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri I am glad & thanks for your guidance but I dont have access the previous account & I don't even remember the password. I read the WP:CLEANSTART it says a user can get a clean start when his account is not under any ban , now the problem is I I don't have access to that account I even don't know if the that account in currently on ban or not. In that case what should I do ? Do I have to mention this in my user page that it's my clean start & I dont have any other account except that one & I am no longer using that & avoid mistakes done by using that account (mostly adding of Raj Sources). As most of the time I just only do revert the edits to the admin versions , I am reading the rules for South Asia articles & I able to understand most of them they only thing left is WP :RS when I able to understand that than I will edit the articles related to the South Asia. Hemraj108 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, if you remember the old account name, just check whether it's blocked. If not, you're safe. — kashmīrī TALK 12:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks , I checked that account it was 1 week ban & account creation was blocked so according to that , the ban was already lifted after one week. And this is my clean start so I don't want to mention the account name so that I can start with a clean slate. And again thank you for the guidance. Hemraj108 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Hemraj108: you don't have to do this but you may want to inform a check user of your previous account (give them the name). That way, if anyone links you to the old account, you'll be ok. It's up to you whether you want to do that or not and you don't need to reply to this comment.RegentsPark (comment) 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Bhagat Parmanand

You are restoring a version which uses a self-published book[4] and "Singh, Dr.Rajkumar (January 2007). discussion. Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)- 281001: Sarang Prakashan, Sarang Vihar, Refinery Nagar. Page 124, whatever that is- any idea for sources.

Why?

Doug Weller talk 08:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The link you mentioned is of the book by Mohinder Pal Singh , originally from the University of Michigan not from the Sarang Prakashan & the older version have this link too. Hemraj108 (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: My reverts were solely per WP:BANREVERT, please feel free to undo them if the other version was better. — kashmīrī TALK 09:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Now if I can figure out which one! I agree with banrevert but I occasionally don't if I think reverting will make the article or whatever worse. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yep, same here, although I usually have no patience to analyse all edits of that prolific sockmaster. Thanks for taking a closer look at these articles. — kashmīrī TALK 09:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: block?

I misinterpreted some edits. That is my fault. I have undone the block and apologized. 13:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Mitch32(won't you be my neighbor?) 13:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Mitch32, it's very kind of you.
Mistakes happen, I only wish more admins were like you :) — kashmīrī TALK 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Generally i try to be conservative before blocking. I let a few AIV reports go. Mitch32(won't you be my neighbor?) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Kashmiri, we need experienced volunteers.
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
  • If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
  • Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversions

Hello,

I'm not sure why these four reversions: [5] [6] [7] [8] had to be performed separately. It just creates notification clutter on my end, and erasing the entire section would have been far easier on both of us. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, Apologies, but I know of no way of undoing them in one go. Wikipedia software doesn't seem to have such an option. True, I could have simply deleted your edit, but then policy-based undoing makes it slightly more legible in edit history. — kashmīrī TALK 18:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kashmiri. Thank you for your work on Universal International Shared Cost Number. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Question: Add requirement for encryption to article (Public recursive name server)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_recursive_name_server&oldid=1190939004 As DNS requests in 2024/2024 should be encrypted for data protection reasons. All common browsers already support DNS over HTTPS (DoH). Possible note: "This list only includes DNS resolvers that support encryption so that requests from third parties are not visible."

It's an encyclopaedia, not a manual. We describe the world as it is, and not tell people how to live or what to use. — kashmīrī TALK 20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. Thank you very much. But there are lists of public DNS resolvers with thousands of entries. So what are the requirements for inclusion in the list? Shouldn't it be more restrictive, otherwise it's just a small selection of many. Is a wiki entry enough? Or how about adding a second title for unencrypted resolvers?
One of the encrypted only list:
https://dnscrypt.info/public-servers
PS:
Am new to Wikipedia 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B, That's a very valid question. Normally, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, many such list-type articles require that all entries on the list are notable, i.e., have corresponding Wikipedia articles. That sort of limits the number of list elements. Similarly here - the section uses the term "notable", and so we must limit the list to services that already have articles. — kashmīrī TALK 23:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Notable?
For example, NextDNS and others are currently used a lot with browsers and are no longer on the list. There used to be a wiki entry, which was then deleted. They are offered for selection in the settings (Secure DNS) of major browsers, e.g. Chrome/Firefox ... (depending on region), so I think they belong in this list, but some don't have a wiki entry.
Would a "notable DNS resolver" be one where there are multiple references from the operator + e.g. browser manufacturer?
Firefox:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/DOH-resolver-policy#Conforming_Resolvers
Chrome/Chromium/Edge ...
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/net/dns/public/doh_provider_entry.cc#214
2nd title
How about a second title for Classic DNS only resolvers (Do53/non-encrypted)?
Only encrypted DoH resolvers can be used with the browser settings.
There are other entries from non-encrypted servers that have already been deleted in the past. I would reintegrate them. 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
From Chromium source code (URL above)extracted:
Global in Chrome...: OpenDNS, Quad9, CleanBrowsing, Cloudflare, Google (+ NextDNS in US)
And global in Firefox: Cloudflare, NextDNS 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B, The ones Mozilla/Google listed are companies with whom they have contractual agreements. That acknowledgement doesn't necessarily mean that these companies or their products are notable for an encyclopaedia. Sure, WP editors can agree to amend the criteria and for example include all the resolvers endorsed by major browsers. You can propose this on Talk there if you wish. It's important for the criteria to be objective, and not of the type "I don't like a particular resolver's specs". — kashmīrī TALK 01:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks.
But what about the second (sub)title with the unencrypted ones?
(so it's more clear for the readers)
How should I then later discuss the criteria? Write directly to a wiki editor or add an entry in the article discussion? 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B, Just share the idea on the article's Talk page and wait a couple of days for comments. — kashmīrī TALK 01:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks I delete the discussion now 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
... But before should the (from me) older deleted not-encrypted entries be reentered? 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:DAD0:8DA0:1DDA:640B (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_recursive_name_server&oldid=1187037584 2001:8E0:2064:BF00:E254:7BA1:A6B1:15DB (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Kashmiri, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
– 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 08:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

– 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 08:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Psalms

As explained in an edit summary: it's standard to have the full text pf a psalm in two (and no more) languages, Hebrew and English in the King James Version. This was discussed at Talk:Psalms, - if you don't agree discuss there, please. I suggest that you restore where you removed Hebrew, and add where it's missing if you are able. Psalm 119 is the only exception because it's so long. - Happy New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. I could not find such a discussion there – could you share a more precise link? Also, not sure whether that Talk page would be an appropriate venue for such a discussion – it should normally be held at relevant WikiProject.
In any case, this is English Wikipedia and there will be valid questions re. including extensive non-English passages. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 15:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi kashmiri - thank you very much for noting that I misread RTH's !vote; I replied to you at the RfA and updated my vote comment. I am also writing here because I want to emphasize that I had already attempted to strongly reject the insinuation that seems to be being made, and I continued to do so in my follow-up comment to you. Thank you again for your participation and for calling me out on this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Beccaynr, mistakes happen, no bad feelings mate. I admit I was a tad too harsh towards you. It's just my growing frustration with the fact that instead of focusing on candidates' skills and content creation, editors focus on their political views or morals, starting from the infamous desire to automatically desysop admins who supported a major US political party [9] to attacking a candidate for not condemning an East German security agency [10]. Big thanks for making your intentions clear. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 20:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, and from my view, your response to me was pitch perfect, because it effectively called my attention to the ongoing need to clarify my comments to correct my mistake and to help prevent misunderstanding. You, AmandaNP, and other editors are absolutely correct to be very concerned about the unfair and inappropriate assumptions that could be drawn; that I inaccurately presented the !vote and then an unfair and inappropriate insinuation was made by another editor seems to emphasize my own carelessness and poor judgment when deciding to include the example. I appreciate you sharply calling my attention to my mistake and the impact my mistake seems to have had on the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been mentioned (not accused) at administrators' noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Let sleeping posts lie

Hi Kashmiri, I was surprised by this post. I understand the sentiment, but that was a couple months old obviously throwaway post, replying in such a way seems more likely to somehow make it a discussion that anything else. CMD (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

True, I could have removed the post as it violated WP:TPG (the OP didn't attempt to discuss improving the article). What other reaction would you have for an editor who just drives by to posts their political beliefs and cheap propaganda ("civilized part of the world", etc.)? Engaging in a discussion? Given we already have 10 archived pages of discussions, I doubt any long-standing editor has an appetite to waste time on rehashing old arguments about Abkhazia's sovereignty and/or the lack of it. — kashmīrī TALK 09:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
While I undoubtedly have sometimes removed egregious cases per WP:TPG, I find it is good practice to leave them be. This was not a regular editor, it was a one-off moment of someone posting their thoughts into what can easily appear to the unfamiliar to be a forum. In the Wikipedia talkpage case, necroing threads also makes them hang around for longer before being archived. CMD (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Why remove the text from Rama Raksha Stotra?

In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Raksha_Stotra, I see you removed text . I cannot imagine what issue can there be if the text stays there. Can you please explain why you think that the hymns should go. What is your expertise on the subject matter? This is your chance before I report it for Vandalism. ShekonTekon (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShekonTekon request you to please restore the text. Veganmeme (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Motor neuron diseases

Hi Kashmiri! I have a short question about Motor neuron diseases, an article which you contributed to. I have added 8B60 as the ICD-11 code, but it could also be 8B60–8B62. What do you think? Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Manifestation, It's a tricky matter, as ICD-11 classifies MNDs differently than the sources used for our article. Given that I fail to understand the rationale behind this rather unusual approach of ICD-11, I'm afraid I can't be of much help here. Just add whatever you feel will work best. I might email the WHO working group in spare time. — kashmīrī TALK 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: If you could email the working group about this, please do! I agree that the current structure is strange. Also, the description of the "Motor neuron diseases or related disorders" group states that they consist of genetic disorders. However, it also contains Post polio progressive muscular atrophy (8B62), which is of course part of post-polio syndrome. This is not a genetic disorder, but a post-viral disease. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

which pages were you referring to?

(drafting) Irtapil (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly improper redirect suppression after page move

Could you explain this edit? Seems you suppressed the leftover redirect for no reason that is permitted per the reasons listed in WP:PAGEMOVER, especially since the article was at the former title Sankalpa (film-architecture) for about 5 years. Either way, I have recreated the redirect since I am assuming you suppressed the leftover redirect in error. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Steel1943 I consider the previous title a misomer – Sankalpa is not a term belonging to architecture, nor it is a name of a film. Correctly, the subject should have been disambiguated as Sankalpa (art installation). For this reason, I suppresed the redirect, of course after making sure that it's delinked from elsewhere on Wikipedia.
I suggest to delete the redirect as a misnomer and/or unnecessary disambiguation. — kashmīrī TALK 17:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate it separately for WP:RFD then. Looking at it like that, the only applicable WP:CSD criterion I can think of for what you did would be WP:R3, but that wouldn't be valid since the redirect was a valid {{R from move}} due to being at that title for almost 5 years. (If you open a discussion, I probably won't participate in it but ... what the heck is a "film-architecture"? Article/redirect doesn't exist, the phrase may be WP:MADEUP WP:NEO.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree! I don't feel like going through a discussion about this redirect, so let it stay, maybe someone with more free time on their hands will feel like nominating it. — kashmīrī TALK 19:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Israel–Hamas war

This edit is plainly uncivil; dredging up a years-old ANI thread to personally attack an editor in a talk page discussion does not contribute towards the substance of the discussion. I would strongly encourage you to strike it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I linked to the wrong ANI thread. I recall he was at ANI for battleground behaviour, and linked to whatever came up first in ANI search results. It was only yesterday that I realised the guy had been dragged to ANI more than once and that I had linked to the wrong thread. I'll update the thread. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK

Why do you close the discussion? If we were still arguing. It seems disrespectful to me that you cut off my speech. Because there were enough references to say that it is a far-right party and you don't want to accept it. You can't end a discussion like that. Monito rapido (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TIMESINK. It's enough. You tried to present the sources you have, editors explained to you that the sources are poor or simply don't say what you claim. You are essentially wasting other peoples' time. — kashmīrī TALK 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Page move without discussion

Within the past few hours, you and two other editors have renamed Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel wtihout even attempting to get a consensus. There needs to be Requested Move discussion. Please self-revert back to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel if it has not already been done. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Move rationales were supplied, including BOLD by another editor. Feel free to restore and start a discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 16:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not comfortable, from a technical standpoint, moving a page that has been moved thrice already, and I think also that a self-revert is more appropriate in a controversial topic. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, @Eladkarmel move the page again, but not to its original title (despite claiming so). The original title was indeed incorrect, but not so much because of the date but because the article's subject isn't gender-based violence. It's getting a mess now. — kashmīrī TALK 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes he did that unintentionally. It is indeed a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor point

Only after a further challenge by Sojourner The off-wiki challenge didn't come from me; could you remove the words "by Sojourner" from your ANI post? Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: I meant this on-wiki edit, sorry if it didn't come across clear. Do you want me to add the link or remove its mention altogether? — kashmīrī TALK 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I think the way you've phrased it is potentially confusing. Your first diff in point 3 of your post is Nihonjoe's answer to my question, and then you mention a "further challenge" from me. As far as I can tell, the comment from Nihonjoe beginning "After reviewing the dates..." was not a response to anyone in particular. Perhaps you could change your post to read "Then he refused to say whether he had a COI when editing them, and only later conceded that he had edited them while being employed." Sorry to nitpick; it's just that I only asked the guy a question, I don't want it to seem like I was running a campaign. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Done, sorry. Hope it's better now. — kashmīrī TALK 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Me neither, I'm not campaigning against Nihonjoe. He is definitely a huge net positive. In fact, I gently suggested it to him to address it early, own up to it. I showed to him that his position is untenable. I hoped he'll realise it, apologise, perhaps write something about rules being different back then, and submit his crat bit to regain community trust. That would have been it. But no, his denial is now going to cost him not only the crat bit but likely adminship; generate a permanent record of his transgressions; undermine the trust of a much larger proportion of the community; and have Arbcom scrutinising him using off-wiki evidence. Sad. — kashmīrī TALK 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

AI upscaling

Just to let you know that AI upscaling is against MOS:IMAGES, on the English Wikipedia (AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image). If all we have is a slightly blurry image, it's better to be up front with the reader about that. Belbury (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury Thank you. I agree in principle, although I doubt whether that particular image is of a historical value. I'll try to clean it up without upscaling.
On a side note, the question of using AI software is more complex. For instance, denoising – a perfectly acceptable type of edit – modifies the colour of selected pixels identified as noise based on neighbouring pixels. With AI support, that colour matching is content specific, in that the software tries to identify the object type and the expected texture, and adjusts colour homogeneity accordingly.
Since the guideline say nothing about AI-assisted editing, is there any consensus regarding such use of graphics software? — kashmīrī TALK 18:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AveXis.svg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

ARC comment

I was not at all malicious as his fellow crat Primefac accused me... Genuinely curious, where/when did I do this? I honestly do not remember making any comment towards you or your editing. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: I'm really sorry, please accept my apology. My poor excuse: I wrote from memory as I did not follow the ANI thread after I was branded by another editor as "some smart and mean-spirited person out there"[11]. I've now crossed out your name there. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 16:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries, just wanted to make sure I wasn't reaching the point of senility where I didn't remember insulting someone! Primefac (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. And sorry again. — kashmīrī TALK 11:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at these changes. Apart from the changes to the lead (new addition 'kingdom' and dynasty), the source used to add the caste is RAJ Era, not to mention the source only mentions Brahmin. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm tired of IPs and new accounts pushing in Bhumihars everywhere, as if it was sooo important for the content. It's mostly socking I believe (Prince Of Roblox for instance}}), although not always easily detectable. For now, I mostly revert such additions – feel free to do likewise. — kashmīrī TALK 11:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have Removed the Raj era source and mentioned another source which clearly mentions the added info , btw i'm not socking and now pls don't cite any other reason to revert my edit i just want some clear info to be written around Bhumihars. Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RSS article

Hi kashmiri,

I note that you have contributed to discourse in a constructive and positive way at Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the past. I'd like to bring to your attention two recent discussions where we would benefit from your feedback.

The first, which discusses whether the lead should refer to the RSS as "far-right" or merely "right".

The second, regarding a proposed edit to remove the claim that the RSS was inspired by European Fascist movements from the article.

Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Improper close of RfC

Even though you are clearly an involved editor, an active participant in discussions in Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, you closed an RfC on whether Hamas denials of sexual assaults should be in the lead section, finding that the denial should not be included. [12]. One minute later [13] you sought to avoid scrutiny of this completely improper close by archiving it. [14]. This is tendentious and disruptive, especially in a contentious topic area subject to Arbcom restrictions. Please revert your action, restore the RfC, and remove your "close" and your "closing comments." Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No my dear, accusing me of malice is not nice. Read first this and then WP:AGF. — kashmīrī TALK 19:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You closed an RfC despite being clearly involved, and then one minute later archived it. That's not nice either. But thank you for reverting your close. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I was removing spam links from other posts before archiving, too. It's called "preparing content for archiving". As I wrote, I mistook the RfC for stale, since it's been hanging there for 10 weeks and the article content since changed multiple times. — kashmīrī TALK 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to archive RfCs immediately, even in far less contentious topic areas. Editors can restore RfCs if they want further comment, and they can't do that if archived immediately. They can't do that if the RfC vanishes right after close. What you did made it impossible for editors to even read your close. Editors need to be able to do that, don't you agree? Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
As I wrote, I mistook this as stale, no comment for weeks, and thus no longer actionable in any manner. I restored it immediately after I saw your message. — kashmīrī TALK 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The last !vote was March 3 and there was an active discussion and other !votes at the end of February in the "Survey" section. Since you closed this discussion and based your closing comments on the Survey, I don't see how you can possibly be saying that the discussion was "stale" and that there were "no comments for weeks." The Survey section was quite active, I'm sure you would agree. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it was reasonable to deem the RfC as stale and to close it, but I don't see how immediately archiving after the closure could be considered appropriate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It was certainly getting stale when closure was requested late January. Now I wouldn't say that. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The last comment was March 3rd but the most recent comment before that was a whole week prior. Only today after these close attempts has it reignited. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes and of course it has reignited due to the UN report. Coretheapple (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, I realize I kind of just jumped into this discussion though it doesn't exactly concern me. Not sure if that's okay or not or if frowned upon. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean but I agree, we should not be discussing this further on Kashmiri's talk page unless he consents further. This is true! Apologies to Kashmiri. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Kashmiri,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple move requests on a single page

Just for future reference, WP:RM#CM says Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative.

Aside from the issues with the RM's potentially producing competing results, I believe there may be technical issues with User:RMCD bot. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri/Archive_7&oldid=1214929434"