User talk:TrangaBellam/Archive 2024

Baidya
Hey, TrangaBellam, I have sought a third opinion regarding the ongoing disagreement. Thanks — Satnam2408(talk) 15:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's shorten the disagreement. I have inquired about Bhaumik multiple times on the article talk page but have not received a response. I believe there is a disagreement about the Skanda Purana and the related section. Bhaumik's input is unrelated to the Skanda Purana and has been accepted by other relevant editors. I removed redundancy and presented it as an opinion or interpretation. Thank you. — Satnam2408(talk) 04:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Hey TrangaBellam, there was some bickering editors on article called Aisha and they cant seem to agree but they have changed the content "Since the late-twentieth century, Islamophobes have used Aisha's age.....", when Ali's source refer to the critics as Islamophobic, so can you please restore to your version as your version was made by consensus by dozens of editors in the archive talk pages. 182.183.46.164 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming inactivity
Do not expect any responses, etc. If you are using that as an opportunity to revert me, go ahead but please leave a note at my t/p. Ty, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wire (India)
Can you explain why did you specifically revert this edit, by restoring your version on The Wire (India)? Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 11:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @ExclusiveEditor Perhaps, a better question is about why you feel the line to not belong to the lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it in the edit summary if you checked. I removed the mention of awards in lead as per MOS:INTRO. Those have their mention in article below too. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC
You shouldn't be closing this RfC given your own involvement in this article and its various content disputes. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * True - I did not recall my old involvement. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding India-related articles
Hello Tranga, I hope that you are not occupied with other tasks to take a look at this request. I wanted you to take a look at this article, which I believe is problematic in many way as it romanticises a legendary folklore as history. I am not too familiar with processes of removing problematic information appropriately but have noticed that are quite active with solving a lot of these issues pertaining to India-related articles. I would like to see what you think, as majority of the information is not from reliable sources at all. It seems to be a way of presenting legends in the guise of a reliable historical article and it bugs me because I know this is the case but it's not easy for me to make that clear to those who are not familiar with the romanticisation of historical conflicts in India. I don't know where a lot that which is mentioned in the article is actually from. I would appreciate your taking a look at this but if you are too occupied, then please remove this message as a heads up so I know to ask elsewhere. Thank you. Muydivertido (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may want to take it to WP:FTN and explain if the issue is that it represents folkloric legend as fact. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 21:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Palestine RfC Close
I think you shouldn't be closing this RfC for similar reasons; if you have strong enough feelings on this conflict to have a quote at the top of this page expressing support for one of the parties you probably aren't sufficiently uninvolved to act as an administrator in the dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Comment originally made in 22:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't accede to your request for "I sympathize with Palestinians" doesn't translate to "I am INVOLVED" in wiki-speak. And, closing the RfC hardly required any significant discretion on my part, the result being fairly obvious. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an inappropriate non-admin close per WP:BADNAC. It's controversial as is clear by the fact that two editors are here contesting your close. I would suggest that an unbiased review of the arguments would have led to a different result. I suggest undoing your close and allowing an uninvolved administrator to review. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Third editor, this type of statement made on top of your talk page is not great, and I strongly disagree with it being such a clear close. I would request you undo the change and let a fully uninvolved person close it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Closure challenge (at RSN)
FYI. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted with thanks. That said, I have no idea why you had me described as a non-admin. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you an administrator? If so, my apology. I had a discussion here. This is definitely not something I would try to close. But whatever. If anything, it was brave and bold. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes You very-well know that my issue was with the word participant. To a fly-by editor, all it impresses upon, is that I partook in the RfC and went on to close it. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant a participant of the project, not a participant of the RfC, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting usage, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

AN
Hey TrangaBellam, I went ahead and brought this to AN. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 21:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)