Talk:Yadvendradev Vikramsinh Jhala

Began working on a new version of the article
Dear Administrator,

Hello!

Thanks for the inputs on my article earlier.

I am new to contributing articles on Wikipedia and hence made a few mistakes. It happened because I copy pasted some text from an article along with using some pictures from them. The information in the source article had earlier been provided by myself and the person whose page is being created (authorized by him, Prof. Y. V. Jhala). Similarly, the original pics belong to us. I did not realize it would lead to a copyright violation despite putting the citation and sources duly in required info for pics and text in question.

However, I have begun working on a new version of the article and created a new draft on the temporary page. Kindly review it. The small problematic section has completely been removed and replaced with original text. Kindly review and help me publish this article quickly should the issue appear resolved to you.

Thanks a lot again!

Wildliferesearcher (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Kindly notify the status of my article's approval.

Wildliferesearcher (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting status on publication of this article
Dear Admin/Reviewers,

It's been 4 months since the addressed concerns have been resolved and duly reviewed by WIKIPEDIA reviewers. The articles hasn't been published yet and stays in the draft stage. May I request the status on this please since the conveyed timeline for publication was 2-3 months.

Thanks in advance!

Wildliferesearcher (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... This page is not about any commercial benefits being accrued to the person in question. It is an informative piece created by academicians (students of Prof. Y.V. Jhala) on a very important award-winning scientist and academic mentor who has trained thousands of researchers and wildlife professionals across the world and whose contribution to ecological science and conservation biology needs to be out there. The page has been created since he is about to retire from his formal academic career and post that it will be very difficult to collate all the information later. There is zero conflict of interest or commercial or promotional gains intended out of this. There are ample references to support his work and footprint as a scientist. It also adheres to all the BLP guidelines. Thanks already to the fellow reviewers. --Wildliferesearcher (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns of maintenance addressed
1. The article's lead section has been shortened. 2. This article has been drafted in a objective manner with due references and links to the scientist's work, internally on wikipedia and externally. (January 2021) Wildliferesearcher (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The articles lead section (above the TOC) doesn't appear to have been shortened? Also, he list of selected publications needs greatly cutting down. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of potential COI
Note that Wildliferesearcher works under the subject, as declared at User_talk:Wildliferesearcher, but states the article was not created on their instructions. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, having provided many of the citations for the work of Jhala on the English Wikipedia - particularly relating to canine research - I have no issue with the edits of Wildliferesearcher as long as these cite WP:RELIABLE sources that other editors can WP:VERIFY. We all need to work within Wikipedia's policies (WP:POL). I thank this editor for their honesty on this matter. William Harris (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding and referring to the work cited by me to validate my contributions. Much appreciated. --Wildliferesearcher (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With a clear COI, Wildliferesearcher should not edit the article, but should instead ask for changes to be made here on the talk page, and let non-biased editors make them or not. Onel 5969  TT me 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Before reverting anything, the least which is expected is taking a look at the contributions before undoing hours of hard work by contributors, about which (in many situations, the creators are likely to have higher knowledge). Sadly, that hasn't happened and it seems like there is an unnecessary ego hit assumed by some of us. I have cooperated fully on suggestions, notices and actions in review edits by many other reviewers like (who has primarily added greatly to the article in making it better), by accepting their necessary edits and adding citations and links (both external and internal which sufficiently validate the facts stated in the article, as pointed out by . The reason I am making the edits and not requesting them is beacuse this article is being written from scratch and an outsider would have zero idea on the subject/work it deals with apart from referring to the citations and a bit of contextual common sense expected from all community members. But it's unbecoming, careless and a bit ignorant on part of  and  to simply revert hours of work and without taking a look at the citations which took hours to add while carefully checking edits by other contributors including the two of them, especially if they have taken a look at the discussion on the conflict of interest. Either way, with due citations for virtually every sentence on the article which mostly talks about FACTS, why should it be called promotional just because someone's life's hard work has had positive impact on society? Isn't that the point why we creative neutral informative platforms like Wikipedia? Anyway, if it suits all the reviewers, I certainly don't have any objections on requesting edits here from everyone who would be kind enough to take the time out for it. I would request people to take a look at all the changes made on 12th January 2021 here onwards(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadvendradev_Vikramsinh_Jhala&diff=999792046&oldid=999687651) and use their wisdom to validate/invalidate the same. I hope this wouldn't come to an edit war requiring necessary actions thereafter, since none of us wish to waste our time beyond productive input/output. Would also request taking a relook at the C-class category assigned to the article since ample citations are there for everything in the previous edits which have been reverted. --Wildliferesearcher (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "Should" does not appear in the appropriate Wikipedia policy WP:COIEDIT, from which I quote: "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.....you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed". However, I am sure that Wildliferesearcher will be happy to post an edit request on the Talk page - that makes it all nice and legal. Be aware Wildliferesearcher that if any of the existing text does not WP:CITE WP:RELIABLE sources that other editors can WP:VERIFY, then it can be removed by any editor. William Harris (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggested edits should be neutral in tone, and simply state facts. And be aware that primary sources should never be used for promotional reasons. in the example provided above, the text starts off with "He has been instrumental..." that statement is highly promotional, and occurs nowhere in the text of the source.  Neither is there a mention of his "Smithsonian allies". In fact, the assertion that he had anything to do with "setting up the Conservation Genetics Facility at the Wildlife Institute of India" is likewise found nowhere in the source. Finally, it's a primary source, so any promotional tone should be completely removed. And thank you for the excellent explanation above,   Onel 5969  TT me 13:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input everyone. I will put up the template as per suggestions made by fellow editors. The article can certainly benefit from more contributions given I am new to this. I am completely with  on the fact that principally, editors are free to remove non-verifiable or non-reliable information. However, it appeared to me that ultimately the edits here rest on subjective interpretations since some editors like  chose to retain some bits of information like portions of bibliography by changing the title to select publications and awards and portions of awards and distinctions despite some info not being in sources apart from obvious work available in form of publications which  retained (maybe that helped him understand what was written was true), while others like  removed everything after first removing the publications which had nearly 30 references, which made much of the story in the article clearer. Later in the absence of that, other editors have found info stated but not cited. It is my sense that what  did, made more logical sense than what some other editors did. How does one reconcile the 2 acts? Does it mean what was done later presents a better understanding of wiki policies than what  did? Of course, ppl are free to edit on every version, but I guess that would be more pertinent to situations of info being obsolete/anachronistic (resulting in deletion) or new events happening (resulting in addition) and maybe a few things missed but overhauling a neutral editor's work to such an extent even when he didn't have any conflict of interest, like me? Secondly, like I mentioned, the reason I am making the edits is beacuse this article is being written from scratch and an outsider would have zero idea on the subject/work it deals with apart from referring to the citations. Being from India and an academician in the field of wildlife science, I have better info on his contributions and actual work and affiliations, all of which isn't available online on any primary, secondary or independent source. For example, all the stated details of his early life and career (my last edit has many credible references added for them but was still reversed, seemingly casually) isn't available online and while it's fair to say that using words like "instrumental" makes it sound promotional but that's the reality which isn't covered anywhere (however, I can't raise an objection to such edits logically and principally) but there is ample info which is very much neutral in nature relating to his personal life, early career, family etc.. What's the point of removing that given only someone from the Indian wildlife community can publish such info and it's difficult to find an online citation for such a thing. Is that promotional? I have seen other WikiProject Biography which do not have citations for people but the personal info is preserved coz not every notable personality would have a book/article covering their personal life to be cited on WP. Thirdly, any person globally in the wildlife science community who knows about the person in question here knows well enough that the professor has high level of contribution on carnivores and less on many other species, yet those pictures (Project Tiger, Lion Reintroduction and GIB) which have had tremendous value and importance were removed and relatively lesser-known pics (Black Kite) preserved. It's almost silly! Not to blame the editors for their ignorance, it isn't expected that outsiders would know about it but if all info related to it in article is edited out along with references to scientific work and there is no utility of someone like me creating an article with that info coz of the supposed COI (again, fair but a bit narrow-minded if seen mechanically) then does that mean that such info never makes it to the page? In my last edits, I put up references but again, casual reversion, don't know why? It was plain ignorant to remove the pics of landmark projects like Project Tiger which has been cited in the article for its Guinness world record feat. It indicates that the edit was rather made very carelessly and without much seriousness. It almost seemed like it was undone just coz much of the same info was added which was removed earlier, without paying any attention to references coz membership info on IUCN specialist groups cited directly from IUCN's affiliated/listed websites was removed as well. That's as official as it gets. GIB and Lion reintroduction project have a very high stature given the critically endangered species in question which global organizations like IUCN are very much concerned about and Prof. Jhala's contribution has been pivotal there but those pics were removed. It's like removing the heart, the brain, and the kidneys from the body of the article. Lastly, I will request edit as suggested. Here's the link to my last edit which has relevant references at most places (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadvendradev_Vikramsinh_Jhala&diff=999792046&oldid=999687651). I would welcome changes that reduce any glorification attempts but would also appreciate respecting biographical info about career and personal life since that is an essential part of any such work about the person and I don't suppose that promotes anything in any manner. I guess telling about early career and family doesn't really glorify anyone since the family members aren't really rockstars. It might even be argued that such info is somewhat essential for BLPs, where available, without much glorification. However, I would offer my gratitude for any reasons, if elaborated, which I am missing against the arguments made by me, in advance. -- Wildliferesearcher (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wildliferesearcher, please use fewer words and more paragraphs. I simply cannot read this, at my advanced age. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the trouble. I suppose reading seems to be a pre-requisite on WP, higher volumes too and longer paragraphs as well. It should be helpful to others who reverted without reading all of the references cited in my edits. --Wildliferesearcher (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I was primarily just doing minor tweaks and tidying up of the formatting - I didn't review all the text of the article and left that to other editors. This is not my field at all so can't really comment. Sources which aren't online (e.g. physical books or newspaper articles) are fine as per WP:CITE, but uncitable personal knowledge isn't. I think we all agree the person is notable at least! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

 * Information to be added or removed: Kindly refer to the draft changes with references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadvendradev_Vikramsinh_Jhala&diff=999805327&oldid=999796437
 * Explanation of issue: Kindly refer to the conversation above under 'Clarification of potential COI'
 * References supporting change: Available in the draft linked above.

Thanks already! -- Wildliferesearcher (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * PINGing the users who took part in that discussion in the section above. (I think that's all of them).  Seagull123  Φ  15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If an editor thinks edits should be made, they need to make specific suggestions. As it stands, I would not add any of the very promotional information which has already been removed. If there are other suggestions, they should be evaluated individually.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit requests looks like adding "He has been instrumental in setting up the Conservation Genetics Facility at the Wildlife Institute of India in 2001 with assistance from his Smithsonian Colleagues." using https://wii.gov.in/conservation_genetics as the reference. That link only mentions the subject as the contact, so does not support the edit requested in my view. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is much to the event of setting up the conservation facility which doesn't get covered anywhere. However, in the event that it does not seem verifiable to third parties, I would not contest that. laso, I seemed to havemade an error in the draft i linked above. Have changed the link. I would request people to review the other content, pics, specifically pertaining to Project Tiger and Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project (there is a lot of it with relevant sources, and the discussion above regarding the precise nature of expertise and stature of Prof. Jhala) shared in the draft here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadvendradev_Vikramsinh_Jhala&diff=999805327&oldid=999796437  -- Wildliferesearcher (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter how important it may be, if further details are not covered anywhere, they can't be included in Wikipedia, as per WP:VERIFY, as it is policy. You might need to open a new edit request for additional requests. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sure. Thanks. Got the first part pertaining to WP:VERIFY already. Never contested the omission. Regarding the error in linking draft, I will do as required. -- Wildliferesearcher (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

 * Information to be added or removed: Kindly refer to the draft changes with references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadvendradev_Vikramsinh_Jhala&diff=999805327&oldid=999796437
 * Explanation of issue: Essential information pertaining to the knowledge about the scientist's work.
 * References supporting change: Available in the draft linked above.

Wildliferesearcher (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you want changes made, please make specific requests. Broad, generic requests like this are unlikely to get fulfilled.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I leave it to the wisdom of other reviewers to determine that. Specific refereences were not evaluated while reverting the entire draft in less than a minute. The draft still has the differences outlined with due references (very very specific) wherever applicable. Rest, I won't argue beyond a point since one can invest out of goodwill only up till a point when people are hellbent on just imposing their editing superiority. I can't put my time for things which are already svailable. Simple logic is one of them. --Wildliferesearcher (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not about imposing editing superiority, it’s just about saving editors’ time. Our backlog is nearly 200 articles for edition.  If you make us search someplace else, instead of pasting the information you already have available, most of us (volunteers as well) will just move on to any of the other +/- 200 articles which were properly submitted. Ferkijel (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just finished going through the whole history of this page, including carefully reading and comparing all versions that you edited, and checked every single one of the current and past citations. I have re-added your reverted edit to Jhala’s work on monitoring habitats, along with their resp. citations.  I re-added the photo that was removed.  But I’m afraid that, although the rest of your reverted additions are likely 100% true, they cannot be verified by the provided references.  This does not attempt to play down Jhala’s positive contribution to the planet. But Wikipedia has clear and strict guidelines regarding verification, per WP:V.  I think all the other edits cannot be used at this time, not yet.  Therefore I’m marking this edit as only partially accepted.


 * On the other hand there are 2 citations that exemplify Jhala’s work (albeit not “administrative experience that has turned into policy”) regarding the potential reintroduction of cheetahs (the approval to reintroduce them via the African cheetah goes into that direction), and the reintroduction of the great indian bustards (https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20201130-cheetah-the-comeback-1742523-2020-11-20 and https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/two-female-great-indian-bustards-satellite-tagged-in-rajasthan-64091). Since this potential new paragraph requires precise wording, I would suggest you write it, and one non COI-editor will be happy to check it for you.  I would be happy to do it myself.


 * I hope we can collaborate to introduce as much as we can to the article to make it better and more thorough, while sticking to the rules in place. Cheers!  Ferkjl (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)