User talk:Venkat TL/Archive 2

Dynasty politics
I don't think adding a section for 'Dynasty politics' is necessary in 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election. In every state election, you would find cases where there are more than one candidate from a family (many instances in UP and Goa for this election cycle). I don't feel it adds any value to the article, and looks out of place. What do you think? Dhruv edits (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dhruv edits I think we should keep it as it is one of the major poll issues of the BJP. Readers should know it. If media is reporting it and we have the reliable references for the same, it should be kept. I don't believe it is a major poll issue, a minor one but worth mentioning for now as long as Nepotism and Dynasty politics keeps getting raised in the political news. If the section is empty, then it should be removed. This is just my personal opinion and I believe others may disagree. If you feel strongly about a particular page, we should discuss on the talk page of that page, or for general discussion we could use Taskforce talk page. I am guessing that folks would prefer to keep it. Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the section doesn't provide any detail about dynasty rule in politics. All it does is mention a candidate of a Constituency who is related to another politician. I believe it lacks substance, because of which it seems unnecessary and out of place, and also not important enough to have a complete section about it. Sure, I believe it should be discussed at WP:INPOL. Dhruv edits (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dhruv edits, Yes, feel free to start a thread there. Wikipedia already has Political families of India and Political_family moreover the term is a commonly understood term not needing explanation. Links to these articles should suffice. If others feel it should be dropped I will respect the consensus. I dont feel very strongly about it. Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you add a discussion regarding opinion polls there, so that conflicts and Edit warring can be reduced on UP and Goa pages? Dhruv edits (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dhruv edits You mean start a thread on taskforce page? We can do it after election results are out. Venkat TL (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Venkat TL can you help me how to edit 2022 Punjab Assembly Elections page. As it is protected  i am not able to rdit it. ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ you can still edit the page by making WP:EDITREQUEST on the article talk page. Make sure to add the reference to support the edit. Venkat TL (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ, you can still make edits by requesting WP:EDITREQUEST. Just copy the text from the article, call it X. Make changes to it that you want changed. Call it Y. Then post both X and Y along with the reliable source for the edit along with a request edit template. Someone will copy the Text Y into the article on your behalf. Venkat TL (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Hemantha. This appreciation from editors I respect, means a lot to me. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Attribution for Creative Commons material
Hi Venkat TL! Thank you for your additions to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. When copying text from compatibly licensed sources, you should add an attribution template to the citation, as I've done here, rather than simply noting it in the edit summary (which is sufficient for copying from other Wikipedia articles). This guideline has more information about this procedure. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi DanCherek! thanks for your comment informing me. I was not aware of this template. In future I will use it. Venkat TL (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Tek Fog
You are now at three reverts today on Tek Fog. If the other party continues, please make a report at WP:ANI/3RR instead of reverting. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Toddy1 ok. I tried to reason with him on his user page though. Based on the talk page discussion, I believe this is over. Hope you are doing well. Venkat TL (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor adding unsourced info again and again
I can see that you have warned user User:Bharatiya Sanatani for unsourced material multiple times and he has already received level 4 warning 3 times in March itself. Can you kindly look into the process of a block if required? >>> Extorc . talk ; 13:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Extorc You are right, he has already received too many warnings. At least 3 admins have commented on his talk page and are probably watching him. I am actually surprised the admins have not acted already. I did not wanted to go through the hassle of filing a case and collecting diffs. You are free to post about him on ANI, since your found another violation. I will support such a case. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Venkat TL (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have prepared the diffs and am planning to put them in the ANI. Would you like to have a look at my sandbox to review that? >>> Extorc . talk ; 15:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc Thanks for starting this. I made some tweaks. Most important edit I made was I dropped the personal attack diff. I think it was not very egregious and more importantly the user heeded the warning and wrote second comment without personal attacks. I think you can post that. If you think the user should give him another chance, that will also be fine with me. Its your call to post. I will support. Venkat TL (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there has been enough opportunity given to him. Giving more chances is effectively allowing another disruptive edit. I think ill be posting that. Thanks. >>> Extorc . talk ; 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc that will not be necessary anymore. I see that @Bishonen has pre-empted you and already blocked him. Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, That's good, I had actually posted the req on ANI before I could see that and now I have taken it down. Thanks. >>> Extorc . talk ; 16:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had that work for nothing, Extorc. It's probably no consolation that the same thing has happened to me more times than I can count. I'm a slow typist, and by the time I'm ready to post, situations have so often moved on without me. :-( Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Ah its fine, the motive was achieved and that is good >>> Extorc . talk ; 16:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

News18 reliability
Hi. Some users are adding lots of exit polls from questionable sources. I wanted to ask you if we have an established position on reliability of "News18" (owned by Mukesh Ambani)? Dhruv edits (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well all these exit polls of comparable reliability. All are questionable. If we are adding some, we can probably allow news18 too. I searched news18 on WP:RSN seems it has not been discussed. It is Godi media indeed. So we have to be careful about using it on political topics. Venkat TL (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree, it should be marked unreliable. For now, I am not removing it from exit polls. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Registered electors row
Venkat, when you add the registered electors to the 2022 election section of the Punjab constituencies, please update the infobox and its ref as well. You can set the update-after to 2027-03. Hopefully, it is easy with JWB. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @MPGuy2824 Yes, I plan to do it in stages. Its too much of work to do at once. I have started by adding empty rows and refs as they are most time consuming. Yes, I found that JWB saves a few clicks and reduces the page loading time. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, as long as its on your to-do list. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MPGuy2824 yes. Hopefully. Why set the update-after to 3 2027? I think 2 2027 is better. EC would have released the 2027 data by then. The readers will get the more uptodate info during the 2027 election in March. (2) do you know when the EC will release the results of assembly election in detailed PDF format? like they have for 2017 linked in our articles.Venkat TL (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, the election was in February, so 2-2017 is good enough for the update-after template. For the 2021 elections, the ECI released some result PDFs about 3 months after the result date. e.g., released in July. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will change the update-after template to 2 2027. Thanks for the kind reply.Venkat TL (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you . I am honored with your appreciation. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed... You're most welcome Volten 001  ☎ 14:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Taanakkaran has been accepted
 Taanakkaran, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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=Taanakkaran help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Numberguy6 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Stray cow
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aakar Patel has been accepted
 Aakar Patel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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=Aakar_Patel help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! RPSkokie (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you @RPSkokie. I am honored with your appreciation. Venkat TL (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Good catch!
You nailed it. Striking similarities, indeed. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC).


 * @Bishonen thank you. I had received two mass-pings in a day. Excessive even by his own standards. Venkat TL (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not an expert in navy problems
Recent Russian and Ukrainian references are censored.Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, Replied on your talk page. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Venkat TL. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AVenkat_TL granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Done things differently?
I haven't been too active recently, but I saw the thread on ANI against you. Do you think you could have done anything differently? I think this comment is in a good direction, but I urge you to review things you should have done differently. For example, consider this comment you made at a DYK where I was involved. In hindsight do you think you should not have said some of the things you said in that comment? VR talk 13:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Vice regent, there was a context to that comment, that is being ignored at ANI. My observations for which they are taking an offence were made more than a month ago, when I was upset that my DYKs was being closed without getting proper 'review-and-fix-cycles' as is expected with DYK nominations. Looking at the hindsight, I think I shouldn't have made it, I have not made any such comments since, and I will never make such comments again. It is probably a massive over reaction to use the incident about moving comment to article-talk-page, to ask for blocks and bans on what admin called "a prolific editor". In summary, I have moved on from what has happened in past, and I dont expect those things that they found offensive to be repeated. I have already apologized. Venkat TL (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Annadale
Notifying you about the recent changes at Annadale, Shimla, possibly they've reverted your cleanup/copyedit. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fylindfotberserk I am afraid I will no longer be able to update those pages as I am getting banned at ANI. Venkat TL (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * DYK topic ban isn't it? I believe you can work other stuff. Anyway sorry to hear that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are old incidents being recycled. Regardless I apologized. If the community believes I am an undesirable threat to Wikipedia and a ban is needed then I believe it is not appropriate for me to continue editing here. I wish you well. Venkat TL (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't let this discourage you. You are a good editor. It will be fine - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the appreciation Fylindfotberserk. Happy to know that you found my edits helpful. Sadly that does not appear to be the widely held opinion among the people that are supporting the bans. My contributions here were not made with intentions of troubling others. I fully understand scope of the ban, but the feeling of being an unwanted threat is too stressful for me to bear and continue as a volunteer contributor. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mann ministry
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Arvind Kejriwal's residence
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

AutoPatroll
Hello,

I've noticed you recently received the page mover permission, congrats! You're very active in your duties and I've noticed that your pages are not autopatrolled, and I'd like to recommend you apply for the redirect autopatroll list. You've had a very busy day today and you're at over 300 links waiting for review at the moment (not your fault, you're doing great work). I wanted to suggest it because it would allow reviewers, like myself, to focus on the backlog that's been building up instead of pages like the ones you're dealing with, which are consistently legitimate and proper. No worries if you don't want to! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Hey man im josh where do I apply for the redirect autopatroll list. If it is something that you can request for me, (as written there) feel free. I have no objections. Sorry for the trouble if any. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * no need to apologize, you are no trouble at all! You're doing great work and I'm sure myself and many others appreciate that. I'm just looking to start recommending it to users like yourself who make a large amount of contributions, just so that we can make a bigger dent in the new page receiver backlog. I've made the request here for you. Thanks for open and willing to it! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you @Hey man im josh. I am honored with your appreciation. Venkat TL (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Renaming constituency articles
I see you've finished the TN ones. Please remember to correct the AC nav template as well. If you want, we can coordinate on this. That way, you can do the page moves, since you have the rights, and i can do minor cleanup. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind about the TN nav template. I've done it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions Indian constituencies Venkat TL (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hello, Venkat TL,

When you are moving pages around, please consider whether there are redirects to the page that you are moving when you consider whether or not to leave a redirect behind. Not leaving redirects today caused there to be a lot of broken redirects (see here). If these were bad redirects or they worded poorly, then, no problem, they've been deleted. But if you are moving a page that has existed for a long time, there are likely some very useful redirects to it.

When you leave a redirect when moving a page, one of Wikipedia's helpful bots will fix the double redirect and point the old redirects to the new page location. When you choose not to leave a redirect, then the redirects are broken and they are either deleted by a bot or by an admin. So, before undertaking a big moving project, it can be helpful to check "What links here" for each page to see if there are a lot of redirects to the page you want to move. Then, you can either choose to leave a redirect, and the bot can correct them, or you can manually change all of the redirects yourself so they point to the correct, new page title.

Just a side note, if a vandal ever does a destructive page move, moving an article to a ludicrous new title, please, always leave a redirect even if the bad title is dumb. Because as soon as the vandal moved the page, the bots got to work and changed all of the redirects to point to the dumb title and if you don't leave a redirect when you correct the vandalism, those redirects will all be lost as broken redirects. It's tempting not to leave a redirect behind when you are correcting vandalism but the bots really need it to exist in order to fix the old redirects.

Thank you for all of your contributions to the project! Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Liz, Only recently created typo were suppressed. After your comment and the link, I have gone through every entry on that page and retargetted wherever a suitable target exists. I hope this is resolved. In future for redirects that I supress, I will not leave the double redirects for the bot to fix, and I will fix it myself. (Since now I know that the bot cant do it). Venkat TL (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Aakar Patel
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable and unreliable source over context
In previous edit here, this edit you provided references for what's reliable and unreliable. But here issue is lacking of information that sheds light on the context. On another hand, like tribune which has just one line which justifies the fact of "was facing four criminal cases, including two for obscene scenes". Isn't wrong to use mere a reference in the name of reliability? Shouldn't we use our consciences to judge worthy or unworthy? I am not against of anything, just curious to know about it. Thanks for stating what's written and good to know. It's really helpful and i appreciate it. Also how you memorize it or is there any way to get it during the course? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2read&write (talk • contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Love2read&write, thanks for your comment. Please note that any discussion related to the contents of the article Sidhu Moose Wala should happen at the page Talk:Sidhu Moose Wala, not here. Please see WP:TOI. Tribune is a reliable source, Times of India is not. You replaced a reliable source with a non reliable source, so your edit was reverted. Tribune is used to back up the contents of the article. Whatever was in the article was sourced to the given references. I dont know what you mean by "But here issue is lacking of information that sheds light on the context". Are you saying that was something in the Wikipedia article that was lacking a reliable source? We need to follow WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. Please read the last three blue links I posted before responding. I also find Simplified ruleset to be very helpful summary of main points. Memorize what? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, rest i'll discuss on concerned page. This is also very helpful. Love2read&#38;write (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dympies (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There was no edit-warring notice. The WP:ANI/3R report had a diff for the edit-warring notice - but the diff provided was a warning for disruptive editing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , You have commented on #1 and totally ignored the other points while declining. Especially #4 and #5 The content being added negatively impacts a living person Attari, and was based on nothing but speculations/conspiracy theories, thread Speculations of Rahul Kanwal and the ongoing RfC makes this clear. Removal of such contentions content is WP:NOT3RR as mentioned in the Point 7 of Edit_warring. And even if you consider me wrong, how does the block help anyone when I have declared that I have no intention to revert? Venkat TL (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to correctly understand the edit warring policy in order to not do it. However, I will make the block from the articles themselves only. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot thanks for quick reply and reconsidering your decline. When I have said clearly "I don't wish to revert", how does it signal to you a lack of understanding of Edit warring? Why will I agree to not revert if (according to you) I still don't admit/understand that I was edit warring? By seeking a response, I am trying to understand the logic behind your imposing of partial blocks. Venkat TL (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed the block to a partial so you can discuss your dispute on the talk page, as well as edit other articles unrelated to the dispute if you so desire. I did not change the expiration time, so it is less than 24 hours away. Do you have some urgent need to edit that article that cannot be handled on the talk page or that cannot wait until less than 24 hours from now?
 * You said that you did not cross 3RR, but edit warring is more broadly defined. Your request did not indicate an understanding of this to me, so a pledge to not edit war is difficult to accept without such understanding. You are free to make another unblock request for someone else to review regarding the now partial block. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, in case it is not clear in my above comment, I am indeed thankful to you for considering to allow me to edit the other pages. My question is specific to the partial block on the two pages. Whether I have an urgent need to edit those 2 pages in 24 hrs or not, should be irrelevant to the question why you believe I am an "ongoing threat" to those two articles and should be blocked from editing the two pages. Yes, I have understood the "broadly defined edit warring" that the admin has applied in this case, hence I said I don't wish to revert again, even though I consider WP:NOT3RR to be valid here. I will follow the advice and make the unblock request as you have suggested, but regardless of this, my question for the need for the partial block by you need an answer. The page block is punitive and unnecessary. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone else looks at this, they will do as they will. But there must be a demonstratable benefit to the project in unblocking you; with a partial block that only limits your editing from one specific article, there must be some need for you to edit that page.  Otherwise, there is no need to remove the partial block since you can edit every other one of the millions of pages on Wikipedia.  So if you want to be unblocked from that specific page, there should be a reason. I disagree that it is irrelevant.  Again, however, whomever looks at this will do as they see fit. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (I probably won't review this; I'm relatively busy today. I just want to note two things: The initial block looks fine to me. However, by this argumentation alone, indefinitely blocking someone from editing a page they lose interest about afterwards would result in an indefinite unnecessary partial block status on the account. Fortunately, the "blocks should be preventative" part of the blocking policy can be used as an argument to lift a block in such a case.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would probably treat an indefinite partial block differently, but this block will expire within hours; I see no need to act to remove it if there is no intention of editing the article before then anyway. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I figured as much. Face-smile.svg I just thought it might be worth pointing out. To an experienced blocked user, I think an early block removal may have a value that is tough to measure just by looking at the remaining duration or if they edit the page afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree, @331dot speaking as the blocked user, the value is immense, even if it is not demonstrable or apparent. Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot I have said clearly that I don't intend to revert on the page, demonstrating as clearly as it is possible, that I am not an ongoing threat to those page. You are deflecting the question. I believe I neither need to demonstrate that "I am a benefit to project" nor "do I need to show any pressing need to edit" to be unblocked. The blocking admin should be able to explain his action and the need for continuing the (page) block. You have already replied thrice and still have not addressed this, so I assume I wont be getting my answer. Thanks for the reply though. Your comment only confirms my belief that your partial block is punitive. Venkat TL (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't deflected anything. The block is not punitive.  I am not convinced that edit warring will not resume.  If someone else is, they will remove the partial block that only affects one page that will expire in mere hours. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot thanks for the unblock, I had already typed this message before I saw the unblock, So I will leave it here. Please feel free to ignore this.
 * "331dot yes, I understand that you consider me to be an "ongoing threat to the 'two' pages", and you wont tell me why. As for hours, FWIW: 80% of the block duration still remains. If you feel it is 'mere hours', why put a block of "just a few hours", If I am a threat now, I will still be a threat after a few hours. The reasoning to double down, just boggles my mind." Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move
I have suggested a move request for Naagin (2015 TV series). Please give your opinion here Pri2000 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2021 Awards
AshLin couldn't award these out. So, I'm doing it (almost a year later). Sorry about the tardiness. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)