User talk:AnomalousAtom

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnomalousAtom, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AnomalousAtom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi AnomalousAtom! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darylgolden Thank you! AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to improve an article related India and its geography

Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378

 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.

Support
Strong Support
Agreed

Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taal Saptak (talk • contribs)

Welcome!

Hello, AnomalousAtom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Water conflict does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply copy content from one page to another without regard to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. Please consult the reliable sources covering that particular topic to determine how much WEIGHT should be given and in what form. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kautilya3 Okay. It is a notable water conflict though. It should be mentioned in some form. How about a very short mention? < Atom (Anomalies) 08:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but not in the form you added content to that page. The 1948 event was an outcome of the Partition of India and not a genuine "water conflict" in itself. But you never even bothered to mention the Partition. To know how to treat the subject in that context, you need to consult the reliable sources on water conflict and see how they do it. Making up your own content amounts to WP:OR even if it is verifiable because the WEIGHT and context may be entirely wrong. There is no way to write Wikipedia content without actually reading sources for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I understand that, but I mean it was certainly a dispute over water rights, i.e. a water conflict. I reworded the paragraph so it is short and states that the dispute occurred as a fact. I did not make up any of the content in that paragraph.

I do not know if you intend to sound aggressive right now, but that is how it sounds right now. All that I wrote in water conflict right now is "In 1948, India and Pakistan had a dispute over the sharing of water rights to the Indus River and its tributaries. An agreement was reached after five weeks and the dispute was followed by the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960." This is not against WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT. If you want to add content about the partition then add it there and to Indo-Pakistani water dispute of 1948. < Atom (Anomalies) 08:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Liancourt Rocks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial^# 10:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template query

Hello! You added the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China § Merger proposal:Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. It uses a template, which as you can see, has a bug: it causes the next section heading to be indented, when section headings should usually not be on talk pages. Using the search function, I have not been able to find the template. What is its name? Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psiĥedelisto What do you mean? I did not use a template in my message there and I thought that talk sections should always have sections? Everyone uses sections on talk pages for new discussions. < Atom (Anomalies) 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnomalousAtom: Right, but talk page section headings should not be indented. Thank you for explaining, I asked one other Wikipedian as well and was able to work out how to solve the issue. See User talk:Cavalryman. Thanks for your time.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psiĥedelisto I still do not know what you mean, because it does not look to me like I caused any talk page section headings to be indented. Which section heading appears indented for you? < Atom (Anomalies) 07:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnomalousAtom: In discussing it with Cavalryman I discovered the issue only happens with the MonoBook skin. So, most people won't see it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psiĥedelisto Understood, thank you for the explanation. Is it the image File:Merge-arrows.svg? < Atom (Anomalies) 21:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]