User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8

Your submission at Articles for creation: R.T. Deshmukh has been accepted
 R.T. Deshmukh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=R.T._Deshmukh help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Hi
Thanks for the efforts. I will check and reply tomorrow. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for correcting my signature issues in settings.--&#91;&#91;User:Akbarali&#124;Akbarali&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Akbarali&#124;talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) But first part of your signautre is still partly not working properly. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply from AfD
Deleted pages aren't automatically watchlisted, I don't know if that's even an option. However, although I don't watch most pages I delete, I do check my recent logs at least once a day, and a recreation sticks out like a sore thumb in the sea of red. Often an AVP is watching the page and will alert the deleting admin if there is problematic editing. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the quick response ! :) —usernamekiran (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

the way afd works
the way afd works, you hactually have to leave an explicit !vote in bold to have it count. I know it's strange.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you mean, something like this? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * +++  DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) �
 * understood. Lets meet as decided before at the rendezvous point. Also dont forget the code from the codebook to identify yourself. See you when I see you. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...
Where is the discussion on what name to use for 2019-nCoV? Or is it over already? Cheers! Shir-El too  17:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC) one discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:2019 novel coronavirus. But there are quite a few discussions which were closed recently. I think at least one discussion maybe ongoing on some article related to coronavirus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Its no bother :)
 * Many thanks! Just added my 2-cents worth over there. Cheers! Shir-El too  06:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC) PS May I ask you to review a new article I'm working in the near future? Before submitting it? Cheers!
 * sure —usernamekiran (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Some really curious...
activity was going on under my username between February 11 and 17, which can been tracked in conversations with User talk:WhatamIdoing, User talk:SpicyMilkBoy, User talk:Doc James and on my talkpage. I did not initiate any of the edits mentioned, which leads me to think I was somehow being pranked - or that there is a glitch in the programing. Can you help or tell me whom to ask about this? I'll look for your reply here. Many thanks! Shir-El too  17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * shalom. The first thing you should do, and as soon as possible, is to change your password. You should also link an email to your account, I think you have already linked an email. Then you should also let know, , and that the activity was not actually from you. Also pinging , as he is a very experienced checkuser, and knows about such incidents. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I already pinged everybody, so you dont need to let them know :) —usernamekiran (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional advice: Click the button to "Log out".  That usually logs you out of all your devices, so if someone swiped your password, you can kick them out and then login again with the new one.  (It may be more likely, though, that you accidentally stayed logged in when you were finished editing, and someone else used the computer without noticing that it was your account.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you for your help and for contacting all concerned. For the rest, I changed my password to be on the safe side, but none of the other options hold water: no other devices, no one has access to my computer, and I'm linked. So, unless the server or a trojan horse are involved, the only source seems to be WP itself. I am checking one other possibility with my server, but it's very far fetched. Shir-El too  18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC) It will take time to dig up the messages as they do not appeare in my "Contributions" list; I'll get back to you with the data in text (I'm not program savvy). "Yes" they are attributed to me and "no", I did not execute them - which is why I want to get to the bottom of this. I DO NOT erase other people's comments. Cheers! Shir-El too  19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Shir-El too, you're going to have to be specific and provide diffs of each edit you believe you didn't make.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect: I don't have data on the changes because I didn't make them - all the edits were reported by the above mentioned, and  - and with one exception I don't remember visiting those pages at all. The only way to find them is to check all our talk pages, and for obvious reasons I'm spending as little time as possible here until this is sorted out. Suggestions? Thank you in advance for your help. <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b>  too  18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't follow you. The three editors you mention I assume are saying you made x, y, and z edits, and those edits must be attributed to you by Wikipedia in the histories. I need diffs of those edits, not generalized disclaimers. As an aside, it is highly unlikely that Wikipedia has a "bug". If it did, we would know about it because it wouldn't just affect you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, but it's hard to understand how they cannot appear in your contributions but be "attributed" to you unless someone else is making the edit and signing your username.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One edit they say they did not make is this one Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW I did change my password as you and kiran suggested; I was away when you asked. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this what you need?

1) User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions Revision as of 07:39, 16 February 2020 (edit) (undo) Shir-El too (talk | contribs) Here (Diff #1)

2) This seems to be where the trouble started first? (Diff #2) (The message above User talk:WhatamIdoing is: Enabling Visual Editor Citation Tool for Twi Wikipedia - Could this have anything to do with it?)

3) and here's another: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions (Diff #3)

Again none of these "edits" appears in my "User contribution", only as part of talk pages. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  20:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've marked the three diffs above in case we need to refer to them singly. I'm comparing those diffs to Special:contributions/Shir-El too, your contribution list. If you click on that link, you should be able to see all three diffs in the list. I don't know what you are using to look at your contributions (it would help to know), but for now use the one I've provided to you. You (at least someone logged in as you) made all three edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I use an old version of Firefox. I found the items in your list and mine by comparing date and time, but still maintain that I did not execute them. The only loophole I could think of was the unused WiFi function on my router; that has now been disabled at source. Hope you can figure it out. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a CheckUser, I have the ability to look at every IP you've used, and the OS and browser used for each edit you've made. I have looked at every edit you've made since about February 10 to now. Every edit was made with the same OS and the same browser, meaning your computer (to depersonalize things) made all the edits, including the ones you didn't execute. If I understand you properly about your "unused WiFi function", you mean that you don't use WiFi to edit Wikipedia, but you've disabled it anyway. I don't know anything about your household, i.e., whether you live alone, but all of your edits have been made logged in, so if someone else tapped into your WiFi, they would have to log in as you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently started leaving myself logged-in on WP. No longer. You are correct: I don't use WiFi for anything, so had the server disable it about 3 hours ago. Yes, I live alone, and the only person with access to the dwelling was not here at those times. Aside that, I don't write my passwords down or 'save' them anywhere, and I always turn the computer off when it's not in use. I still think the problem is in some form of programing: could an accidental combination of keystrokes cause a glitch? I would like to know what happened, and hope this is the end of it. I appreciate your time and help. <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  22:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything that would cause a "glitch". As long as it doesn't happen again, I would let it go as an unsolved mystery. It's frustrating, I know, but I can't think of anything else for you to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much - one and all - for your time and effort. Hopefully this WON'T happen again and we can get back to what we all really love. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  07:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Usernamekiran, for continuing this thread on your Talk page, but, can you please explain why you made this refactoring edit on my Talk page? Not only was it inappropriate, it made no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * EUREKA! Mystery solved! Each time I left a message or followed a page I checked the "Watch this page" box; when the subject changed or I finished I went back to the page to un-check the box and hit "Publish changes"!!! When I did this today on your talk page a message flashed "your revision was saved" as usual, but it looks like the program is revising text instead of just un-watching the page. It explains all this balagan (mess). Can something be done about it? Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b>  too  17:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC) PS and what happens when I want to un-check this page?
 * If you're using the desktop version of Wikipedia, you'll see a star button on the top of the page, left of the search box. You can un-check that to stop following a page. I'm not really sure how unchecking the "watch this page" box and hitting publish changes would change the text of the page, but if you stick to using that star button, this shouldn't happen. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip! I've been around WP a while and always did it the other way. Certainly the un-watch-star saves time. Still, look forward to seeing what  thinks. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b>  too  18:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't follow the precise sequence of events, but what you're saying (again, sorry) doesn't make sense. I'm afraid it still sounds like "user error".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That's allright: I've filed a bug report with Wikimedia (I hope)., may I impose one last time to let everyone know? I don't know how to ping. Many, many thanks! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  15:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You did successfully ping me, and Bbb23 properly in your previous ping ;) Regarding others, I think they are keeping an eye on this conversation. Also, you might find WP:PING, and WP:Archive helpful/interesting to read. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again...
I didn't know that's what it's called! I'm not good with technical texts so operate on a 'monkey see, monkey do' basis' - ie copy-paste. Also broke up the discussion here, so we don't have to scroll down half-a-page to edit. I will follow your suggestions: you have helped me very much. Merci, Arigato, Gracias, Spasibo, Dank & Todah! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  06:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thats how I basically learnt whatever I know one more handy tip: you can get details of templates (the stuff in curly brackets) by adding a tl infront of it. I do it, and while in preview mode, I open the link of the template in new window. For example, you can see the details of   if you see a preview of , It will render as: re; and then you will be able to see the how/why about the template.
 * If you have any questions/doubts anytime, please feel free to contact me. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
for the good wishes. I rarely see personal messages on my Talk page, let alone good wishes, so it doesn't bother me. (I guess I'm just not that sociable of a guy.) Not to say I wouldn't like to see them. ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * you are welcome :) See you around  —usernamekiran (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Calabasas_helicopter_crash
You undid an anonymous edit to this talk page, with the comment "Unexplained blanking". While I don't know if the change you reverted followed appropriate procedures, it wasn't entirely unexplained - it archived the content in. If you mean to undo that archiving, you might want to undo it from the archive page too. Jordan Brown (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing it out ! I blanked the archive page for now. After around 18-24 hours, I will manually archive few threads. Actually, only the page move discussion needs to stay on the talkpage for a few weeks more. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * all the threads moved again to archive, except the successful move discussion. I also changed bot settings to leave 2 threads (it was 3). —usernamekiran (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Thank you guys! It is apprciciated a lot. It also explains why I didnt get greetings in last two years —usernamekiran (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not cleared !
Hlo !!! Yesterday you have been left a message on my talk page about something on Wiki. But still I want to be clear that ,Is there anything wrong that I have edited on my user page or may be anything else ? Just tell me the wrong one I have done ....because I just wanna be clear so that again in future I'll not repeat that. Thanks. Regards-Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! No. Not at all. I just wanted to introduce a few concepts about wikipedia to you Please feel free to contact me if you have any question or doubt about wikipedia. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

२०२० मधील महाराष्ट्रातील कोरोना विषाणू उद्रेक/चार्ट
Thanks for your response. {Medical cases chart} in marathi wiki २०२० मधील महाराष्ट्रातील कोरोना विषाणू उद्रेक has some Bug and it is reported on phabricator for resolution, Please help to for faster resolution.--<i style="color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;">. Shlok</i> <small style="color: gold">talk. 11:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm currently on mobile. I will look into it in one or two days. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Anju Kurian
In this edit to Anju Kurian, your edit summary "DOB is unnecessary for short description" isn't helpful. It doesn't matter whether a DOB is necessary; the only question is whether DOB might be useful to help someone distinguish between two people with similar names. If someone is searching on Wikipedia for an actor named "Anju", having some idea of DOB might be helpful to distinguish between any of the subjects listed at Anju. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is currently only one Anju Kurian. So "indian actress" is more than enough to distinguish her, thats why I think DOB is unnecssary in this case. Its not like we are talking about John Smith. There are 10 cricketers, 12 military persons, 3 criminals, and many of everything else. But if you think DOB should be added, please feel free to do so. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everyone searching knows the full name. When somebody searches Wikipedia on a mobile phone and types "Anju" they are offered multiple pages to pick from, including:
 * Anju (actress) Indian film actress
 * Anju Kurian Indian film actress
 * Anju Aravind actress
 * Anju Mahendru Indian actress
 * Anjum Fakih Indian television actress and model
 * The mobile interface adds the short description to each in order to help them spot the article they want. That is the principal use for short descriptions on Wikipedia.
 * If they are looking for an Indian film actress called "Anju", the present short descriptions are inadequate to distinguish between them. It can therefore only be helpful to have further information in the short description, and that is why I believe you were wrong to revert for the reason you gave. Hope that's clearer for you. --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah, I didnt think about it that way. You are right. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if those notices were duplicated, but I did look and couldn't find any earlier alerts or notices
Are you sure you got them? Because you aren't "aware" until they've been placed on your talk page unless you've been involved in a discussion of the sanctions at AE or ANI/AN or have been sanctioned, all in the past year. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was, I am aware the sanctions exist, and I am a little bit familiar with them. Whenever I am bored, and not in the mood of editing enwiki, or even reading it; I tend to read other namespaces. Mostly old policy related RFCs, or old RFAs, essays (mostly humorous ones)(but never arbcom cases, i never understood it). And this sanction notice is posted on talkpage of articles that come under them, and on many user talkpages. I read Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions something like an year ago or two. Also I am not using computer to edit wikipedia since last 7-8 months, so my editing is mostly gnome-ish, and not much substantial. And I also intentionally avoid editing articles that I consider controversial (whether or not under sanctions). Hence there was no notice posted on my talkpage yet. Also, I have never been involved in a discussion of the sanctions at AE or ANI/AN or have never been sanctioned :) —usernamekiran (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, when I give these I try to give them even-handedly, preferably without knowing anything other than that the editor has edited in the area. In your case it certainly "does not imply", but when I give it to some people, well, you can imagine what I might be thinking. Doug Weller  talk 09:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Need Review !
Can you please Review my draft ? Draft:THE SAINT AND THE MOUSE ! advance thanks .RegardsTanisha priyadarshini (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. Draft:THE SAINT AND THE MOUSE ! is currently entirely plot summary. Kindly go through notability guidelines for books. You will find all the answers to your questions there. If you still have any question/doubts after reading it, feel free to ask me :)
 * Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So, Can I publish it or submit it after making some changes there?Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The book fails all the criteria listed at WP:BOOKCRIT. If you publish it, someone will move it back to draftspace; and if you submit it, it will not get approved. Kindly read WP:BOOKCRIT. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you mean I can't publish it as I referred a book which doesn't refer the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT ? Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Isnt it the same book that the article is about? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the article I mean the story was picked just from a part of the book but the whole book is not about it. Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrfan Khan
You revived a lot of broken-ness in this edit. :( DMacks (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there were lots of problematic edits. I was not sure which version to pick. And I am still unable to edit, too many edit conflicts. Maybe I will wait for a day, and then clean-up the article. It is 1PM in India currently, as the news spreads, a lot people/fans will be reading/editing the article. I think for 12 hours more from now. Maybe I will try after 3-4 hours from now. But because of the lockdown, everybody would be online. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. The ton of ec are really annoying. The article is semi-protected, so at least IPs and newbie-accounts won't be involved. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the article is still being heavily edited, and even though some are auto-con, they are sort of inexperienced. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy
Hi, can you please review this one? Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy

Amazingcaptain (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

time off talkpages, and signatures
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Hello everyone. I recently found about the tragedy of Ron Jones. Even though me, and Ron rarely interacted, the incident kind of shook me. Some other editors, and/or signatures are reminding me of Ron, and hence of the incident.Even though I am not actively editing these days, I have always been actively watching the watchlist, and keeping an eye out for random stuff. But till I get Ron's incident out of my head, I will not be watching any talkpages (main, WP, users, and other TPs). However I will be watching any page where there are no conversations/signatures. That also means I will be off from AfD, SPI, PERM, and all sort of noticeboards as well. Thank you. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * It was a pleasure interacting with you :)
 * and thanks a lot for the barnstar, it is appreciated a lot —usernamekiran (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

fake allegation of reliable sources & Significant coverage
I have gone through its website, but its clearly shows that it is supported by different dignitaries from all around the world(Refer : Supported. If it is an promotional event how it can be covered by famous media houses from all around the world & supported by government peoples, music directors and many high profile people . The criteria which has been considered is already mentioned the kid should be below 15 & the steps/Hierarchy of selecting kids are already defined. I have also seen the question was raised on the funding source but it is already mentioned on there website it is done by there sponsors and partners Significant coverage has been done by different media sources when i have gone through the google search there is enough reliable content from which it can be removed from the deleted wiki source & make it live  --Ajit.rox28 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional help please
u|Usernamekiran Is it possible to archive all of the conversations on the Kent Tate talk page? I really would like to see the talk page clean without the condescending nasty comment. Is it a matter of changing the settings? Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Racial bias on English Wikipedia

 * Talk:Racial bias on English Wikipedia

I'm not sure that this discussion resulted in a consensus to move these pages. Plus the new title is grammatically incorrect, which was pointed out by several commenters. Are you willing to reconsider, or to provide a more detailed rationale for your close? Thanks for your time. – bradv  🍁  00:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I can update the rationale. And I will :) but I'm not sure what grammatical inaccuracy you are referring to. The "the Wikipedia"? Kindly let me know so that I can update the rationale/title accordingly —usernamekiran (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The proper grammar here is the English Wikipedia. Using the definite article is required here in English. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even apart from the grammar issue, I think the close itself is incorrect, and it should either be relisted or closed as no consensus. Criticism of Wikipedia has already been contested and reopened for discussion. If you're not willing to reverse your close of the other two I'd be willing to take this to WP:MRV for another opinion – please let me know what you prefer. – bradv  🍁  04:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I reverted my close, relisted the discussion, and posted a comment there. I also closed the newly opened discussion, with a link to the original discussion. I hope everything is okay now. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. :) – bradv  🍁  19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t delete a page I created
Hi Plazmid here, requesting that you do not delete my page , I may be a a newbie but this page needs to exist ! Plazmid 12:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazmid (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. Don't panic. Nothing is going to get deleted. The message on your talkpage was sent accidentally. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you u|Usernamekiran! That looks so much better now. :-) Yeh! LorriBrown (talk)

untitled
can you share reason why you have nominated page for delete, please check more about tanuj khatri in video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SY_cjEbqPk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ3i_0FQfLs kindly check  (Ziyush (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi. I already explained my reasoning at Articles for deletion/Tanuj Khatri. I nominated the article for deletion because Tanuj Khatri doesn't pass the general notability guidelines. That means, Tanuj Khatri has not been covered in reliable sources significantly. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran i have used source of  bhaskar.com jagran.com, dailypioneer,telegraphindia,shared youtube link of 2 reputed news channel as well, if you need more i will provide more.i have collected this information by spending 3-4 hour, please do some research you will see a lot of article  (Ziyush (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I nominated the article after doing research :-) The deletion discussion lasts for seven days. That is, you have seven days to add more sources to the article. Also, you can comment at the discussion at Articles for deletion/Tanuj Khatri. But kindly mention there that you created the article while commenting. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

i have added enough link and also youtube videos proof that Tanuj Khatri is Spokesperson and student leader of JMM party, you can see same in youtube videos as well,if wikipedia editor delete pages likes this they why anyone contribute to wikipedia, i have created many pages in past also but no one put my page in delete with in 5-10minafter publication.i belive this is done in error or because JMM is local party and very few people know about local leaders. (Ziyush (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

De vulgaire geschiedenis van Charelke Dop
Please don't restore the speedy tags a second time. Please go back and look: no content, and bad disambiguation? The speedy tag was vandalism, or at best completely ignorant of CSD. Thanks. 82.132.214.106 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Explain
Can you please explain your multiple restorations of this tag which very, very clearly do not apply? Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was on Huggle. I saw an IP removing CSD tag from an an oddly named article, and it looked like vandalism. Before the IP had posted here, I had already apologised to them on their talkpage. Strangely, you removed their response. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're not bothering to look at what they're removing before reverting not once but twice? In no universe does a3 or g14 apply to that and it doesn't matter if an IP or Jimbo himself removed it without an edit summary, it very clearly was not vandalism and shouldn't have been rolledback once let alone twice and definitely not from your AWB account. My removal was actually accidental because of my touchpad, which I immediately undid. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to argue. I made a bad call, it was a mistake. We all make mistakes. I apologised to the editor as soon as I realised it. I will try not to let this happen again. We are on the same team here. Can we please move forward? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The Not-Too-Late Show with Elmo

 * Thanks a lot. Sorry for the delayed response. The template is not visible on mobile version. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your support for ISL fan's unblock request. You have no doubt read my comment expressing my frustration with many administrators' attitude to unblock requests, and it is much easier to get acceptance for a more generous approach if there is support from someone else. JBW (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response too, including the response to the block, and for thanking me. I have always felt the unblocking process for copy-vio is harsh/bureaucratic. In some cases, it is sort of okay to ask "What is copyright?" but then the template says to "explain in your words" How is Wikipedia licenced? Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? But I do think "How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?" is okay. And as now we have partial blocks, and already had topic bans, I believe we should be lenient with good-faith editors; depending on what the blocking reason was. I often come along similar attitude from admins, but in this case ISL fan had said they will not upload any photos (only reason leading to the block), and even then the questions were too much hence I commented. Thanks :) See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thank you. It is appreciated very much —usernamekiran (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for closure of page move of cricket articles
You have recently closed a page move request under discussion at Talk:2023 Cricket World Cup citing "Even though for different reasons, consensus is to stick with current naming". I feel and closure seems to me as inappropriate, reasoned below. And per Move review it's better to understand the matter first with the closer. As you are an experienced one, I assume you know closure guidelines very well, still to define my argument, I want to point out, "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly. Page move is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important." Per your closure, you have mentioned "different reason" but those reasons are refuted with supporting evidence and citations. Below, I am pointing out all as brief as possible: So, dear fellow user, I failed to understand how you've managed to reach that conclusion since no argument stands as refuted well with supporting evidence and citations and also not decided on vote. I feel that misunderstanding and miscommunication can happen for anyone. And even if there any confusion exists, one could have brought to RFC or for better clarification to Relisting. But right now I don't know if any closure can be undone by the closer and keep open the discussion. Let me know how was it "not moved". You can ping me. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1st argument by User1: "as it's the only Cricket World Cup in that year, and is currently consistent with all other 50 over World Cups, ambivalent with rest.."
 * Refuted with citing consistency for articles and for official logo and names.
 * 2nd argument: When first one refuted, they brought "WP:COMMONNAME applies....discussed many times before. For the T20 world cups, it's completely different scenario, as men and women play in the same year."
 * First they did not mention "many times" where? The conclusion of T20 world Cup page moves were, which is similar case here and not because of "men and women play in the same year".
 * 1st argument by User2: "no evidence shown that the COMMONNAME has changed...above are Primary Sources"; "WP:NAMECHANGES: If reliable sources...continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue..."
 * Refuted with citation RS that of Major cricketing websites and news articles. However, they pointed out quote is present which was proportionally not correct and no guidelines says it could be an issue and refuted by citing that the proportion is rather in opposite case. Again, they themselves "nullify own argument" by citing a "quote" today just before 4 hours of your closure which I could not countered due to closure.
 * The 3rd user did not mentioned any of their own, point to above.
 * The central point of the argument of 4th user is POV, along with mis-interpreting T20 things which was not correct as highlighted above, refuted with supporting evidence.
 * Again brought new argument.."but there are also plenty of RS that don't..." without mntioning any and misled by citing wrong facts about women world cup and added another POV..."No one seems to have struggled with ambiguity for the last 45 years". Refuted with supporting citations that it was not the case for the Women World Cup.
 * Then a general discussion happened for tagging the article which I've later corrected and addressed. However, since I've pointed out the cricket articles are not consistent even with ICC, the 1st user proposed, "We could make them all consistent by removing ICC Men's from all articles", now here they just nullify their arguments of COMMONAME AND NAMECHANGE, as most RS citations have ICC mentioned in them irrespective of "men's" mentioned or not and also brought their notice that it's consistent with other sports articles, cited several article of all major sports where the governing bodies' names are often used.
 * 5th user used Commoname which was already refuted and nullified before.
 * 6th user not sure.
 * Hi. Thank you for bringing up this to me, it is very much appreciated. In short: I gauged the consensus, and not the head-count. I did a little mistake though, except the first one, all the oppose votes are based on WP:COMMONNAME rationale.
 * In the first vote, even though not explicitly mentioned/linked, the commenter based their rationale on WP:CONSISTENT. You responded them with "T20 world cups", and a previous closing statement for T20 world cups page move. As explained in the next response, they said common name applies, and that T20 tournaments have different scenario as both gender teams play in the same year. That would also mean the common name for these tournaments would be different, as the reliable sources would adding an identifier to differentiate between the gender specific tournaments. You responded to that comment with Same age old reasoning. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies here, since it has been officially renamed by ICC for all its events[...] That's what WP:COMMONNAME basically is: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)[...]. So even if the ICC officially renames the tournament to "2023 ICC Male's Cricket World Cup", and reflects so on their official website, we should not change it until it is established as common name.
 * The second commenter also appropriately referred to the guidelines. After your first response with RS, they pointed out that the sources are using a direct quote from the head of ICC referring to "men's World Cup" rather than using it themselves in normal reporting, and only 1 refers to "ICC Men's World Cup"[...]. You responded with reliable sources including the title in their reporting instead of quoting. Like pointed out in the response of fourth oppose comment, one cycle of news reports is not enough to establish common name.
 * Even though discouraged, and frowned upon; it is okay to comment "per above" in case an editor thinks what they were going to say has already been covered by previous comments.
 * The fourth vote is a little POV, but before mentioning their personal view, they referred to COMMONNAME. They also explained why there is a gender identifier in the titles of T20 tournaments. After your responses, they mentioned that it's a mixed picture - some RS do, that you've identified, but there are also plenty of RS that don't[...]WP is interested in commonly used names, and as there is still a mixed picture in the RS there's no clear case for change.
 * You are simply in denial that the COMMONNAME doesnt apply in this case. The comment I pointed to above: that it's a mixed picture - some RS do, that you've identified, but there are also plenty of RS that don't[...]WP is interested in commonly used names, and as there is still a mixed picture in the RS there's no clear case for change, consistent/sustained use of the new title is required to change an established common name. Like other comment in the discussion says: one news cycle is not enough for that.
 * 6th editor was indifferent.
 * To summarise: all editors pointed out to COMMONNAME, you kept responding COMMONNAME cant be applied as the official name has been changed - that is what COMMONNAME says: enwiki prefers commonly used names over official names. You later responded with sources using the new title; other editors said RS are using mixture of both names, and it is not enough to establish the suggested name as common name. You pointed out other RM (basically "other stuff exists", which has a different circumstance; hence different common name. That doesnt mean there was no consensus. Even though the editors had different reasoning after your arguments, the consensus is to stick with the current title on the grounds of common name. I hope this answers your doubts :) —usernamekiran (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think you created more doubts now. The whole scenerio of COMMONNAME is failing now considering below points. However, your intentions seems clean but I think your last comment makes me more doubtful about kind of prejudice existing in the judgement like, one round of publication and mixed publication etc. or partial consideration of CommonName. Better I think I must go for Move review to take assist from admins. Would wait for move review, if you want to make any further conclusion on it. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSISTENT:I think one thing that you fail to consider is that the title change is not about only men's but also for ICC. ICC is always been in the common name. Consistency was a bigger issue here in the World Cup articles. Most RS says its ICC and after recent changes Men's have been used. One can't ignore Common name for ICC and considering for Men's. Not logocal right? This thing is totally ignored in judgement.
 * Why the WP:COMMONNAME logic that the users gave should not be applied: one cycle of news reports is not enough to establish common name, where is this written in the guidelines, its POV. Guidelines does not say such.
 * WP:COMMONNAME is not accounting for name change. The guidelines for that is WP:NAMECHANGES, which says, When name change occurs....If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. And reliable sources are using that as provided by me.
 * In your comment you have mentioned one line from guidelines but another important line missed is, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. One can't keep ambiguous name when RS are saying disambiguous way.
 * RS are using "mixture of both names", not at all, it seems like cherry picking. Did the participants countered me with enough RS? No, could not provide any RS to justify this statement, not even one. The only RS added is again a "quote" which according to them should not be considered. Above that, guidelines does not say such policies at all. Let's consider this hypothetical conclusion of "mixed" thing, then why X would be considered and Y would not? Thus again fails justification and that's why such absurd policies are not mentioned in guidelines.
 * T20 tournaments have different scenario as both gender teams play in the same year. Not the case, it's more about Gender.Sex specific names when ICC not only used in naming it but also in logo. So whenever logo will be used it will illogical to use a ambiguous name, will be unprecendented along with considering the above points.
 * Before other stuff exists, I've expalined the first point of CONSISTENT and COMMONNAME partiality for ICC.
 * Hi. I think we are getting ourselves into a never-ending conversation. To put it in short: there was a consensus to not to move the article. Now it is you and me that are reading into the statements of other editors from that RM. Like you said, my intentions are clean; hence I would not like to get in an argument. If you still think I performed the bad move, kindly go through the move review like you stated in your lead statement above, as I stand by my closure. No hard feelings —usernamekiran (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to know any specific reasons why such things were taken into consideration, "mixture of both names and one cycle of news report is not enough". If you can tell me in brief, would be thankful. Drat8sub (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Shannons Nationals Motor Racing Championships
Hi Usernamekiran. I noticed you relisted the move discussions I created at Talk:Shannons Nationals Motor Racing Championships (which I realise is a bit of a mess!). I originally created this due to a vague request by Sparkle1 on User talk:Sparkle1, and was planning to raise awareness of the discussion on the Motorsport and Australian Motorsport wikiprojects once they gave their reasoning for the move (since I'm not the one wanting those particular moves, and since I didn't want to misrepresent their positions). They haven't done so however, and they have made other edits, so I wonder what the best course of action would be now (ie withdraw the request, start a new one requesting the moves I actually want, or just waiting and seeing how things play out)?

I hope as someone with page-mover rights you might have a better idea about these kinds of situations. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I would suggest to stay put till someone closes the current move request, as you have mentioned your suggested titles in the nomination. Lets see what happens when this request is closed, and you can decide about next steps after that. Please feel free to contact me anytime :) —usernamekiran (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks
for your espionage tagging via awb - much appreciated... JarrahTree 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Currently I am tagging organised crime articles (WP:MAFIA). I am having a little trouble with espionage tagging (awb edit, and manual edit) because of similarly named (now defunct) "intelligence agency" project, and template shortcuts. I hope I solve this before upcoming Sunday. Whenever I solve it, I will alternatively tag the projects. few of WP:MAFIA, and WP:SPY. I have been "on again-off again" in my efforts of getting these two projects to active status. I hope we can do it soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your appreciation is very much appreciated as I am very well-aware of your work regarding the wikiproject.
 * It is a very complicated background/back story to this, at wikimania in hong kong (a few years ago) I was trying to convince a milhist person that 'intelligence' might be the best name and at the time and on the plane back to australia read a very good overview from the us intelligence circles - and a few years previously to that had enjoyed the company of a FSB alsation on a train, but I digress. After the alsation and the hong kong sojourn - typically milhist created their own intel sub whatever, and the favoured name was espionage... the whole milhist interwining is even weirder with cold war material which adamdaley has been adding to - there is linking going to the task force inside milhist but there is stand alone project - so it goes.. the great thing about Rater which I have been using, is that it now (as of this week) showing projects abandoned etc - and it is possible inside rater to remove/delete the old intelligence tags... things do happen... as for org crim - that's another discussion imho, perhaps longer - later...  JarrahTree 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I am a little aware of the history, a little. Do you think we should change the name from ESPIONAGE? I always felt it was a little odd. But what should we rename it to? It would be better to rename it before a lots of pages are tagged. I will just improve the code the code for AWB, but will be on standby in regards to tagging. We should have a discussion/strategy someday soon to make the project active. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Move page to create article "Lathyrism"
As per your inquiry on the Requested Move Section of Neurolathyrism Talk Page. I have the article you asked for in User:SneaselxLv94/Lathyrism. It is available to be moved to Lathyrism. Thank you. Sneasel talk 19:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I performed the page moves, I also created to Lathyrism (disambiguation) in the image of Cancer (disambiguation). Would you kindly take a look at the newly created disamb page and see if everything is okay? I don't know much about Lathyrism, so it would be best if someone who can compare the similar disambs takes a look at it. Let me know if there is still something remaining to be done. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the section "Association with famine" has an undefined reference. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the barnstar, it is very much appreciated. I noticed you replied me on your talkpage as well. When you post on anybody's talkpage, they get a notification. But if you want to trigger a notification to a user in a discussion somewhere other than their talkpage, then you can use ; like I did in the beginning of this comment. That way they will get a notification; but for that to happen, you have to sign your comment. Thanks again. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alba Sanchez
Hey, you close the WP:RM on Alba Sanchez, but didn't move the page. Might checking it out and moving? Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Somehow I had completely forgotten about it. Thanks a lot for pointing it out. I will perform the moves soon. Maybe after 7-8 hours from now. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. It has been done, thanks again for reminding me. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Samannud
Hello:

Your request at the Guild of Copy Editors for a copy edit of the article Samannud has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Parbhani Lok Sabha
why did you remove the 1952 result? The plan is to add all the past results one by one. And many Indians do not understand the difference between Parliament and Assembly, so I used the common words Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. Use Indian words for an Indian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.47.23.164 (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it back soon after this message was posted. But we have separate page for Parbhani Vidhan Sabha. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

AWB replacements
Sorry, no time today. On the road now. You might get quicker response from the hive at the appropriate sub page of WP:AWB. Ir I can get to it this evening (EDT). -DB David Brooks (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response, it is appreciated a lot —usernamekiran (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Trimstone
✅ GiantSnowman 07:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * lol. I responded at your talkpage roughly around the same time. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Tattle Tales (album)
Hi Usernamekiran, hope you are well. Earlier you moved this article to its current title, however the conensus was to move it to "TattleTales (album)", without the space. Could you please kindly move it to the correct location? Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you very much for pointing it out. When I closed the discussion, I mentioned it was being moved to title without space; and yet I accidentally moved it to the title with spaces. I have fixed it now. I apologise for the mishap. Thanks again. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Gaddis
Not sure if you got the ping, but this article has been moved. As you offered to clean up the incoming links, it's all yours. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got the ping. I was looking at the new users log at that time. I will shortly clean up the links. Thanks a lot for letting me do it :) —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User: SHISHIR DUA
Hey, I believe you might want to check this out. This pretty well sums up how immature and inexperienced the user in question is. Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I agree fully. Contacting an admin about someone he calls "nasty" for no reason - ugh. --◊ <b style="color:#095">PRAHLAD</b> <sup style="color:#707">balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Shishir Dua and Merchandise Giveaways
Sorry I didn't read thru his block log earlier, and his block message. I have voted strong oppose. --◊ <b style="color:#095">PRAHLAD</b> <sup style="color:#707">balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 05:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Clan Edmonstone
 * added a link pointing to Aberfoyle
 * Claude Morley
 * added a link pointing to BHL

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sorted.
 * Clan Edmonstone: Aberfoyle → Aberfoyle, Stirling.
 * Claude Morley: BHL → Biodiversity Heritage Library. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Edits occurred while running task of fixing incomplete/bad links: special:diff/977442879. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I received your email, I will respond in 24ish hours. Apologies for the delay. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

What the heck happened with Prahlad?
I know his talk has several rev-dels but, in short what exactly caused him to get an oversight indef. block without TPA? Self request? Perm clerking? something along those lines? Damn, he was a pretty decent guy, really unnecessary for him to go into sysop areas after being told not to (I back in 2017 was in CVUA when I clerked a perm page, gosh that was the most idiotic thing I ever did on WP). Bingo bro  (Chat)  06:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure either. But I think it is not just clerking at PERM. It came as a surprise to me too. I hope they come back someday. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, he might have had a serious issue to get TPA revoked but I really do hope that he sorts out the issues, relaxes for some time and does eventually come back in maybe a few years.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  18:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Help understanding relisting
Hello Usernamekiran. You kindly relisted a move request that I created for the article on [|George Washington Bush]. This is my first experience with Wikipedia so I thought you could answer a few questions about the process. Specifically, since it looks like there will not be consensus on my original proposed move of the article, and assuming that the request is closed without the move being made, can I then adjust my proposal and make a new move request?

I have in mind changing my original proposed move from "George Washington Bush" -> George Bush (Black Pioneer)" to "George Washington Bush -> George Bush (pioneer)". I think this would achieve consensus.

Is that an acceptable way to proceed? Thank you, --Johnosaunders (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have relisted the discussion again. You can see my comment there for more details. Regarding article titles, and renaming them in general: article titles are not chosen/created by the choice of editors. There are certain policies, and guidelines which govern the conventions/system of article naming. They are described at Article titles. I know it is a lot to read, and there are many technicalities, and "sub-clauses". But in short, and  one of the  most important conventions are: "recognisability", "naturalness", "precision", "conciseness", and "consistency" (with the titles of articles from same field). Then there are a lot of essays/guidelines explaining how to choose a title. Also, the most important thing in wikipedia is "verifiability", like it is mentioned in the move discussion of Bush. I think I am straying off the topic. To put everything in short: First step for choosing an article title is to choose "most commonly used, and recognisable name" for the subject of the article. If that name is already taken, then we have to see which article/topic is primary topic, and then choose a name with disambiguator. The disambiguators in this particular case are "black pioneer", and "pioneer". Then we have to provide sources proving that suggested name is indeed commonly used name by reliable sources. Regarding initiating a new move discussion: if the subject of article is currently on the news, then it is suggested to wait for at least six months to start a new discussion. But for an article like this, I would say to wait for at least one month, or two before starting a new discussion. And in all the cases, sources should be provided supporting the reasoning/claims made in the nomination of the discussion. I am not sure if I gave the answer you were looking for. Please feel free to ask if you have any doubts. Also, I have sent you an email, but I would recommend to have rest of the communication on wikipedia. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Title
Just saying hello, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * lol. I was about to message you in a similar way two or three days ago. I saw your comment somewhere (dont remember where now). How have you been? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We didn't cross often on WP lately, but I reminded to check if you were still active when revisiting the Love Jihad conspiracy theory article, where you've also posted before. I'm doing good, thanks, also busy with work so my WP presence isn't always consistent.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Organized Crime bot
Hello Usernamekiran,

I reverted this edit. How exactly did your bot come to the conclusion this article had anything to do with organized crime? Because it involved Italy? Maybe this was just a random one-off mistake, but if it was related to being in Category:Years of Lead (Italy), then I would suggest modifying that criterion - plenty of stuff there that has nothing to do with organized crime as normally understood. SnowFire (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Apologies for delayed reply. I reviewed the article again, and I think it comes under the scope of organised crime.Strategy of tension policy (strategy) wherein violent struggle is encouraged rather than suppressed. This strategy can be used by organised crime organisations, hence it is under scope of the wikiproject. Also The strategy of tension is most closely identified with the Years of Lead in Italy from 1968–1982, wherein both far-left Marxist extremists and far-right neo-fascist groups performed bombings, kidnappings, arsons, and murders. That is basically organised crime. That's my logic. The wikiproject organised crime is not exclusive to cosa nostra/sicilian mafia, yakuza, underworld, or bratva. I mean, the wikiproject's scope is very broad, and it includes the term "organised crime". Thus this strategy comes under the scope. Regarding the bot, it tagged the article becuase it is in the categories Category:Neo-fascist terrorism, and Category:Terrorism in Italy. Please let me know if you think my inclusion incorrect, or have some more opinions/concerns on the topic. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd disagree with this categorization, both here and for other articles within the terrorism categories. Those are either appropriate for WikiProject Terrorism for the unsanctioned side or WikiProject Military history/Cold War task force / WikiProject Cold War for the "sanctioned" side.  Organized crime generally refers to, well, criminals who want to make money.  Topics under terrorism generally refer to people with an ideology or a national loyalty, and illicit money is a side-issue.  If the project's scope is very broad, then I'd say either the scope should be narrowed, or the project renamed / merged with others.  If "organized crime" includes stuff like guerilla warfare, that's not very intuitive; it would be very weird for, say, a counter-terrorism commander in the military to suddenly have a Wikiproject Organized Crime on their page, as if they were part of the FBI.  SnowFire (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with your point regarding terrorism categories, and "terrorism generally refer to people with an ideology or a national loyalty". Even though guerilla warfare is not under the project's scope, I was thinking about adding counter-terrorism commander after an year or two. But obviously, I would not do it directly. I will have a discussion similar to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized crime before adding or removing any topic from the project's scope. Please see that discussion, if you have something to say there, I would really appreciate your opinions a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - agree this issue is larger than the two of us, so a discussion on a community page is probably appropriate. Thanks for your work in creating / running the bot regardless, even if I disagree on its proper scope.  SnowFire (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we don't disagree completely :) If you have any particular categories/articles in mind that should be under the scope, please let me know here, or on the project's talkpage. Like I said earlier, your input there would be appreciated a lot. And there is no hurry, as you can see on the talkpage of the project, we are working on it since at least three years now. Please feel free to join the discussion whenever you want. See you around. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, broke an existing WikiProject banner by altering  (which is valid) to  (which isn't). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I apologise for the delayed response. I will look into it soon. I might not have access to a computer for 36ish hours more. Thanks for pointing it out. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here's another instance: in, (which isn't a WikiProject banner, so doesn't go inside ) was altered to  which doesn't exist. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
I know you removed your message but I wanted to thank you for your trust. I'm happy to explain myself when requested. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't page move GANR
In moving Central Park mandarin duck, you also decided to move the GANR from the original title (It should be at Talk:Mandarin Patinkin/GA1). As it's a separate page and the title is part of the record, please move it back and remember to not do that again. Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I performed the moves. Just one request: I cross checked the moves/post move cleanup; but would you kindly take a look at it? Another look with fresh eyes would be good. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of orphaned article
Hi there, I noted you been using AWB to tag articles with the orphan tags. I believed the default settings of AWB might have been set to 3 previously. The updated criteria is that the article is considered an orphan if has no (0) incoming links. So as long as the article has an incoming link, it is not considered an orphan already. Please change the setting accordingly and if you do not mind, please do run through the last list you used for AWB to de-orphan the "orphaned" articles. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. I thought I responded to you already. I have initiated a discussion at WT:AWB. Regarding removing the tags, I currently do not have access to my computer for a few days. I will do it as soon as I can. Thank you for pointing this out. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think I caught some of it but not all. The deorphaning project members will eventually sort it out sooner (I hope) or later. As the conversation on AWB talkpage, I believe setting the option fix it but a permanent fix will be better (thought you are probably <10th user I need to inform for about 2 years). Thank you for bringing it up in discussion! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also articles about biological species are never orphaned, they link to their genus or family and to categories.Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Categories don't count, the link needs to be in the article body. Also, for an article not to be an orphan, the link needs to be inward, not outward - if a species links to a genus (or family), that means that the genus (or family) article is not an orphan. For the species not to be an orphan, there needs to be a link from another article - the genus (or family) article should contain a link to the species. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And there should always be such a link.Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh?
You posted a "Welcome, newbie!" message at KrakatoaKatie's page? She's an admin, checkuser, oversighter and arbitrator. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No big deal. I'm pretty sure it was an automated 'welcome to Huggle' message, though I'm not new to Huggle either. I guess when you don't use it for a while and have to update the app and get a new bot password because you forgot the last one, Huggle thinks you're wet behind the ears. ;-) Katietalk 12:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * hehe. Its always fun to welcome experienced users (special:permalink/879239003, special:diff/904737873). Seriously speaking, even though my editing has decreased a lot recently, I often check Huggle/Users. I also go through PERM like in every 4-5 days. I apologise for the confusion. And no, it was neither auotomated, nor templated message; I typed it out. Also, I am pretty sure DumbBOT doesnt reply to any questions —usernamekiran (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the DTTR people, so no worries. I got a chuckle. Liz is protective of me (as I am of her). You're doing a great job. :-) Katietalk 14:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As a regular Twinkle user, I should recognize an automated message when it occurs. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing cases at ANI
Hello, Usernamekiran,

It's very helpful for you to close a complaint at ANI when it has been resolved but when you do so, please place a after your signature so it indicates. It matters to some editors whether a case is closed by an admin or a regular editor. Thanks for all of your work! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am aware of nac. But as I dont actually make any decisions, rulings, judgements, or anything similar, I didnt think nac was necessary. I simply close the discussions. I will keep your advice in mind :) —usernamekiran (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:ClueBot Commons
No offense, but I removed your comment along with the indef'ed user's comments while cleaning up. Meters (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None taken, old pal. Maybe someday I can remove yours along with a vandal See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Meters (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just joking :D It was nice to have a talk with you again . It had been very long. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali 2020
Hello, Hope you are doing well. Wishing you a happy, safe, and prosperous Diwali. Stay safe. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot . It is very much appreciated. I hope, and wish the same for you, and your family. Honestly speaking, because of COVID, and some other reasons, in our neighbourhood this year's दिवाळी doesnt have the excitement like every year. But I hope you had a good Diwali. Take care. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this year has been completely different. --Titodutta (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "covid time traveller memes" might cheer you up. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello back
I am also this person :) notafish (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, nice to meet you!
Hello! We met yesterday in the 2030 strategic planning meeting. It is a pleasure to know someone "live" (Zoom live, anyway) on Wikipedia. I may take you up on your offer of a helping hand which I see in your profile. Stay well. TrudiJ (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Usernamekiran BOT 4
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Usernamekiran BOT 4 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC) <small style="color:gray">To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message


 * thank you very much. I hope the same for you. I also hope we keep seeing each other here for a very long time. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you!
Hi Kiran, I am well, and hope you are too. I really appreciate your message on my talk page, pointing out that it was just a simple mistake in page naming. TrudiJ (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Galgotias College
Regarding your CSD of Galgotias College, non-administrators are explicitly allowed to object to nominations. If your nomination wasn't under R2 or G6 (hard to tell, given you didn't list a specific criterion), could you tell me which criterion you wanted? Not having incoming links or having a target that is borderline notable does not seem covered by the criteria. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I mentioned admin to avoid an edit war. About your query regarding criterion, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Sometimes we have to do something which is not mentioned in any guidelines or policies. Even though "redirects are cheap", they still cost a little. The target is "Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology". The redirect is literally the exact first two words. If one types that in, Wikipedia suggests the full title. It's not an acronym nor an alternate name. If we started to create redirects for every college article, we would have at least 5 redirects for every college article. Like "galgotia's", "galgotia's college of engineering", "galgotia's college of technology". Then ones without apostrophe. If we don't delete now, then it would set a precedent. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not avoiding an edit war, but causing one. If someone reverts your speedy deletion tag in good faith then simply dont re-revert, which is edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm avoiding it. I didn't edit the page after that, nor reverted your edit We've been discussing it. Anyways, what should we do next? How about deleting the redirect? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would you want to delete the redirect? And you didn't avoid an edit war, but started one by re-reverting Sdrqaz. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Use WP:RFD. Even if all of you agreed that it should be deleted, admins can't delete it speedily when it doesn't meet any of the criteria. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

hello.
Do you watch ben 10?51.223.21.2 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ben 10 (2005 TV series), and Ben 10: Alien Force. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Kākāpō move request
Kia ora, thanks for closing the move request for the Kākāpō article - I just noticed though that the page still seems to be at its old title? I was going to chuck something on the move requests page but wanted to give you a heads up first in case it's something you're able to address? Turnagra (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Usernamekiran; I actually came here to talk to you about exactly this RM. I was hoping you would be willing to revert your close and instead relist the article, on the basis of this discussion? While it didn't get any opposition while formally listed, in the short time that it was listed there three editors posted in opposition to the move, and a relist might give us time to confirm the consensus. I recognize this is unusual, but thought it was worth bringing up for your consideration. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Anthony has already performed the move. But I'm okay with relisting the discussion. Kindly let me know if you guys want the discussion to be relisted. Also, if I don't respond soon, please feel free to relist the discussion, as I do not have any objection with that. But in that case, provide a diff to this edit while relisting. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 18:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kiran - I obviously don't agree with relisting the discussion and think that the justification for doing so is flimsy, but I won't get into all of that on your talk page! Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you okay with doing so, then I would appreciate that; thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

comment
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow "I just hope tiktok-ers dont come here, as according to 9gag consensus, they are narcissists retards." What you said there prompts me to make a couple of observations, if you wish to hear them. ~ cygnis insignis 19:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * erm... okay. But it's not my opinion, it's 9gag's. And most of the consensus are generally correct. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not your opinion, but that of a website, and you are merely repeating the "consensus" of 9gag? ~ cygnis insignis 20:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * exactly. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is silly to pretend that excuses an offensive contribution to any discussion here, a purposeful community, as it would in any polite face-to-face conversation. ~ cygnis insignis 21:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I understood you. I didn't make any offensive contribution to Wikipedia, or towards any individual Wikipedian. I merely said what is common knowledge on 9gag, and like I said above, it is not my opinion. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk)
 * As this is the opinion of someone who may or may not be a narcissistic retard, you could choose to ignore it, but I recommend, with genuine concern, that you speak with someone trustworthy about this discussion. Sincerely ~ cygnis insignis 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you are or not a tiktok user, kindly don't take it personally. I was merely telling what 9gag thinks. I've never come across any tiktok users in my life. I do not have any opinion about them. At most, I've seen a few tiktok videos on other platforms. Like I've been saying from the start, it is not my opinion, but of 9gag's. I apologise if it offended you. I also did not understand what you meant by "I recommend that you speak with someone trustworthy about this discussion." —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Unimplemented RM
You closed the RM for ʙ 4 minutes ago, but haven't moved it yet. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 06:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. My internet was acting up a little, so I performed the round-robin manually. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--   LuK3      (Talk)   21:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sultan bin Abdulaziz
Morning, just wondering why you chose to move this article? The ngram is crystal clear that the form without Al Saud is the WP:COMMONAME, as it has vastly mode than twice the page views. It's also self-evidently the more WP:CONCISE form, so our naming policies clearly favour the previous name. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had relisted the RM once, and there was not much participation even after the relist. special:permalink/1060390022. Let me know if you think the discussion should be relisted again, I have no issue with relisting/undoing the moves. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies I had missed the RM, should have looked closer! Would you mind relisting it again? It doesn't seem right that the move should be undone when the evidence seems to completely point the other way. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * relisted :-) —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:darkred; border-width:3px; text-align:center; padding:3px; width:800px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas! ''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Весела Коледа! Hello, Usernamekiran! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}