User talk:JRDkg

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
Congratulations on your recently granted privileges to patrol pending changes. I see you recently accepted a pending change to December 30 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @Toddst1 Thank you for letting me know about this. I was reluctant at first to accept that edit, but I will keep this in mind. Cheers and Happy New Year! JRDkg (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JRDkg!


Happy New Year! JRDkg, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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


 * @Fylindfotberserk Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the same. JRDkg (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hello, genuine question, not including an edit summary is a valid reason for reverting otherwise completely acceptable edits (for example, ones correcting egregious factual errors in the article like in my case) ? Or not even checking the content of those edits and automatically assuming it's vandalism is the general protocol in these cases ? Not trying argue with you, I'm honestly very curious about the reasoning behind this because I've never before encountered someone reverting article contributions for the sole reason that they might be mistaken for vandalism on glance. Blondebarbie128 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Blondebarbie128 Please always try to put an edit summary for more clarity. However I also saw that you changed some link without attaching sources which made me revert it, because it is a pending changes protected article which is scrutinized more than any unprotected article would be. Anyway feel free to revise the content with proper references and an edit summary next time. I have also posted some useful links on your talk page. Hope it helps. JRDkg (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I need another clarification here. The edits I posted were corrections of mistakes another user made in his edits. He (correctly) updated the UFC pound-for-pound ranking by swapping the places of Conor Mcgregor and Robert Whittaker, and added Carla Esparza to the women's list. He however forgot to swap the fighters' records too when swapping their places in the table, so right now it lists Conor's record as Robert's and vice versa. He also put a completely wrong record for Esparza (she's 17-6, right now it lists as 9-4) and as her division listed a weight class she has literally never fought at. This user's edits were accepted despite not providing any references. If you check the page right now, said table doesn't list any references for none of the fighters' records or weight classes, probably because it's an information that can be immediately found with sources on their own wiki pages that are linked. So how should I proceed right now if I want correct the mistakes that are still up despite being both unsourced and wrong: should I provide sources solely for Mcgregor's, Whittaker's and Esparza's records and weight classes, or should I add references of this info for all of the fighters' there ? If the first, then should I, in order not to get reverted, gradually add more sources of this info whenever I need to edit the table further to update placement of a specific fighter on the list ? If the second, then why the general consensus on UFC pages using similar tables (such as various lists) seems to be not having a source for basic info like records and weight classes ? Blondebarbie128 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Blondebarbie128 Hi, I am not an expert on UFC related articles but as a general rule you should add the references only for the categories which you are editing/updating. For the rest of the unsourced material which you doubt is wrong or incomplete, you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the matter or post your query to an experienced editor who regularly edits UFC articles. I'm sure you will find one if you go through the edit history or the article's talk page. Let me know if you need further help. Thank you. JRDkg (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Krishna article
hi my edit was in good faith and want to present the neutral information tin this article.and I know this article has excellent quality. i removed the claim of incarnation of pir and others who are claimed for the incarnation of krishna. its a fringe view where every godmen consider them incarnation of the divine. and its sourced from the blog and deplores the quality of this article. and for children 77 i added 160100 as I believe it should be mentioned upfront. i removed died from personal edit as it the not a wiki of a historical person, but a mythical deity when texts themselves describe it was the end of avatar/ disappearance not that he died. its represent a significant view based on Mahabharata, Bhagavata and generally whole oof Hinduism, so it should be respected. and for rest I, already added reasons when editing it. thanks Dm51c (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dm51c Please stop your disruptive editing. Krishna is a good article and your edits appear to be disruptive. You are removing major sourced content that you do not seem to like. Kindly gain consensus on the article's talk page. Reverting my edits will not do any good to you and if you do not stop you may be blocked. Thank you. JRDkg (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

hi, i know consensus is reuired not only for adding but also reverting a good faith edit by the fellow editor. i do not undertand why u are so negative behaviour. i have just changes avatar_birth and avatar_end instead of born ,died which are more neutral for major hindu deities as you also might be aware of. also the claim of pir of krishna avatar we cannot write just like its written, it can be written that a lot of personalities or their follower throughout hitory have claimed themselves to be incarnation of krishna which is more appropriate instead of blannket statment that ramdev pir is incarnation of krishna which is sourced by blogs. as you are an editor, do you think these changes are wrong which will only improve neutaility of myth/deity based article.? Dm51c (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dm51c I doubt whether you even know how this encyclopedia works. Regarding your question Wikipedia is just concerned with facts and Krishna according to many historians was a person. Hence the Born and Died parameters. Do you even know the meaning of consensus? You are adding and then deleting the discussion from the talk page and saying you have gained consensus. Consensus is gained when atleast 2 people respond and agree on a particular thing. Please do some useful work instead of vandalizing and subtly removing sources from an article. JRDkg (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hindoo
Hi JRDkg, I removed the references from Hindoo (disambiguation) because (per WP:DABREF) references should be placed in the linked articles and not on DAB pages themselves. I propose that we keep the text of the lead for Hindoo (disambiguation) but remove the references - Hindus discusses the archaic spelling with references, so the readers can go there for more information.

Art of Living Foundation
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Art of Living Foundation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - sanctions apply to articles related to India
--Hipal (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)