User talk:Fylindfotberserk/Archives/2019/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fylindfotberserk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jannat Zubair Rahmani
- @Fylindfotberserk: I'm not agree of your edit on Jannat Zubair Rahmani. Her brother Ayaan is notable! Ayaan played roles in many tv shows as a child actor and he was also appeared in film Gully Boy and Ayaan has 2 million followers on TikTok. - CptViraj (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| I am many times as co-incidence while on editing and stopping Vandalism like in Saaho on checking history come across to you doing same. Accept the Barnstar for your Anti-vandalism work. Lots of Love Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
@Manupriy Ahluwalia: Thank you very much sir from the bottom of my heart. Happy editing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox
@Fylindfotberserk: I'll use sandbox for test editings from now. Actually I had not clear idea about use of sandbox. I'm learning, thanks for the suggestion. Sourik8 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of reliable Indian Government sourced content from Indian state articles
Can we continue the discussion about Maharashtra geography, and Goa. Why Britannica has to be the only source for discussing states? In Goa, we should write southwestern like it is written for Kerala and Karnataka. In Andhra Pradesh, it was written southeast and Telangana is centre south. Everywhere in Wikipedia, many places are written like this. So why we cannot write more than one direction for Maharashtra and Goa also? BelgaumGoan (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Oh somebody has deleted it in the Goa article again. Kindly revert it back. As for Maharashtra, let it stay that way. That's what the experienced editors agreed to in WP:IN. As you've probably seen, I was advocating in favor of govt. sources after you put them in articles, but it seems (suggested by all other editors) that the opening line/lead of a state article need to be as simple as possible and the govt. sources may not be correct from a wider global perspective probably since states are categorized in different zones by different institutes. So I'd respect the consensus.
Why Britannica has to be the only source for discussing states?
. Exactly that were my words in the WP:IN and in the User's talk page who initially deleted it. But atleast the Britannica definition is not that specific. It covers wider geographical region. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)- Although they are experienced editors, it is not the right thing to ignore many sources which say Maharashtra is also south and centre. We have to continue the discussion. Otherwise, all states of South except tamil nadu have multiple directions written. Why are there different rules for them? I am also adding a talk to Gotitbro. BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan:Technically south-west, etc is a geographical term and as I've explained to you already, the current opening sentence covers west, south and central regions. Personally, I feel Maharashtra is more west-central than south-central. IF you want, you can continue the discussion, but I'll say the current version is probably the best. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Central is not covered in opening sentence. Deccan and Peninsular point to southern.
- I think konkan is south west and other parts of Maharashtra is central south, but it is my opinion. But all of us agree central is also big part of Maharashtra. BelgaumGoan (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Kindly see Deccan plateau article. The opening line says
The Deccan Plateau[1] is a large plateau in western and southern India
and the second para saysIt extends over eight Indian states and encompasses a wide range of habitats, covering most of central and southern India
. As you can see western, southern and central are all covered. I rest my case. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)- @Fylindfotberserk: Okay, but so Deccan covers western also, right? Then why we have to say western separately, but not southern or central? If you don't add south or centre, atleast remove western which is also mentioned indirectly. BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's because "western peninsular part" is sourced from Britannica which according to all other editors is more reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Okay, but so Deccan covers western also, right? Then why we have to say western separately, but not southern or central? If you don't add south or centre, atleast remove western which is also mentioned indirectly. BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Kindly see Deccan plateau article. The opening line says
- @BelgaumGoan:Technically south-west, etc is a geographical term and as I've explained to you already, the current opening sentence covers west, south and central regions. Personally, I feel Maharashtra is more west-central than south-central. IF you want, you can continue the discussion, but I'll say the current version is probably the best. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Although they are experienced editors, it is not the right thing to ignore many sources which say Maharashtra is also south and centre. We have to continue the discussion. Otherwise, all states of South except tamil nadu have multiple directions written. Why are there different rules for them? I am also adding a talk to Gotitbro. BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I think we are going into circle because again I am saying Britannica is not the only source. We should include all the thousand other sources. But this time I am going to explain.
- Only one editor Gotitbro said that only the Britannica source should be used. I think other users, like Abecadere are okay to consider other source and mention other geography directions.
- According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Citing sources it is supposed to mention all different sources. You should not copy-paste from one source only. Entire first paragraph of Maharashtra is almost just copied from Britannica.
- If you are using Britannica source, why didn't you quote exactly how Britannica said? Britannica said that "occupying a substantial portion of the Deccan plateau" before it said "western peninsular part". It sounds like small difference but I think it means that Deccan plateau is more significant identity of Maharashtra than western peninsular part as why it is mentioned before. And I agree.
- Britannica also said in the western peninsular part "of the subcontinent", not even India. Subcontinent means all of South Asia, its different from saying India. Since you wanted to say about India, so definitely you should also consult another source which mentions directly India.
- Britannica is also saying different things about Maharashtra.
- Britannica article on Mumbai says Maharashtra is southwestern state. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mumbai
- Britannica Kids article of Maharashtra said it is west-central. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Maharashtra/328879
- Marathi language of western and central India. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marathi-language
- Britannica said that Gondwana is only central India, and some part of Maharashtra is Gondwana. So Britannica says at a least part of Maharashtra is central. www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-historical-region-India
- I think your logic to use Britannica is it is a encyclopedia. There are other encyclopedias. They are not as much famous but still they are also written by experts.
- https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/maharashtra State in west central India
- https://www.ancient.eu/article/874/ellora-caves/ Ellora is a sacred site in Maharastra, central India.
- And why using Britannica rule is not applying to other articles, South India states? Telangana is having very similar opening line to Maharashtra, "Telangana is a state in India situated on the centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau." but still it mentions different directions. For Telangana you do not remove south and centre if it is written as Deccan?
- So many thousand of news articles and government sources are there. Kautilya3 says do not give a preference to the government source. But also it was wrong to do opposite if you are completely ignoring government source. Government of India source is at least as much reliable as British Encyclopedia. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Probably you've seen me fight with GotitBro regarding the use of Britannica and inclusion of multiple regions in his talk page as well as in WP:IN. He was not totally in favor of Britannica either. Probably you missed that Kautilya and Abecedare were not in favor of using Govt. sources. What can I do if the majority are against multi-regional definition in the lead? Abecedare agreed on the definition of Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh put by me as per Britannica and but you can see Fowler changed UP back to "northern" India from "north-west part" of India. As per him Wikipedia is an art not a science and provided some logic which is believable but didn't comment on why Germany is both a Western and Central European country. Previously, it was about Poland as well. I believe it would be best to discuss in the Maharashtra talk page itself similar to what has been done in the Poland talkpage. It is difficult to change something which is longstanding if the majority do not agree. However, Abecedare and Fowler seemed to have agreed to inclusion of govt. definitions somewhere in the article "body" under "Administration" perhaps. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I saw Kautilya3 only commented at beginning,they said gov't source should not be preferred but did not say it should be excluded.Did Kautilya3 comment somewhere else they agree with current version of Maharashtra article?
- Where are govt definitions later in article? And much more people are reading first line than a paragraph in middle of article. So from neutral perspective if all definitions should be considered then all should be added at beginning.
- Am also adding talk to Gotitbro and Abecedare. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Probably you've seen me fight with GotitBro regarding the use of Britannica and inclusion of multiple regions in his talk page as well as in WP:IN. He was not totally in favor of Britannica either. Probably you missed that Kautilya and Abecedare were not in favor of using Govt. sources. What can I do if the majority are against multi-regional definition in the lead? Abecedare agreed on the definition of Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh put by me as per Britannica and but you can see Fowler changed UP back to "northern" India from "north-west part" of India. As per him Wikipedia is an art not a science and provided some logic which is believable but didn't comment on why Germany is both a Western and Central European country. Previously, it was about Poland as well. I believe it would be best to discuss in the Maharashtra talk page itself similar to what has been done in the Poland talkpage. It is difficult to change something which is longstanding if the majority do not agree. However, Abecedare and Fowler seemed to have agreed to inclusion of govt. definitions somewhere in the article "body" under "Administration" perhaps. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Always appreciate when you hit that "thank" button. :) StaticVapor message me! 08:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @STATicVapor: Thanks man. That was just a small token of appreciation for the awesome work you are doing in Pro-wrestling related articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Wrestling stats
I see you revertedmy edit of Lex Luger's page, I have to say the height you are using is inaccurate. I've been a wrestling fan for over 30 years and have cross referenced multiple cites confirming a lot of WWE's official stats on their site are wrong. WWE while being the official source is not always the most credible. Many of the stats they're using are outdated from wrestler profiles 20+ years ago. If you are a wrestling fan I encourage you to do some research and examine the stats in comparison to cross referenced sources from several other sites and I think you will see they consistently don't match up. Hunterb212 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Hunterb212: As per WP:PW, the industry specific sites are considered to be the most reliable, so WWE.com is superior. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said you should do some more research in regards to that, their stats are outdated and just because they are the official source does not make them the most accurate. I've been wrestling fan probably longer than you and have seen stats, heard them announced and researched them extensively. Wwe.com has several stats that are outdated and erroneous but if you choose to believe everything they say without question, that's your prerogative.
- @Hunterb212: It doesn't matter what you or I believe. I'd repeat that the industry specific sources are considered most reliable here in Wikipedia. And in reliaty, Luger today doesn't look anywhere near 275 lbs, as suggested by your wrestling-data source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said you should do some more research in regards to that, their stats are outdated and just because they are the official source does not make them the most accurate. I've been wrestling fan probably longer than you and have seen stats, heard them announced and researched them extensively. Wwe.com has several stats that are outdated and erroneous but if you choose to believe everything they say without question, that's your prerogative.
Hello! I see that other users are repeatedly trying to insert a birthdate for this actor, citing Instagram. Of course you are correct that Instagram is not regarded as a reliable source. But it might be helpful for you to point that out, in your edit summaries or on the talk page, instead of just reverting. It would be even better if a reliable source could be found for his birthdate! Meanwhile I have semiprotected the page for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Thanks a lot sir. I've written "Unsourced" multiple times in the edit summary before. Even if it is Instagram, the IPs don't seem to bother tagging a ref either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed the Twitter reference here as a more reliable source (Firstpost) was found for the information. As per Wikipedia:Twitter-EL, even if it isn't illegal to use Twitter as a source sometimes, a more reliable publication would be preferred, yes? Since the information can easily be proved from other sources, can the Twitter link be removed? Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Actually twitter links from verified accounts of a notable person, in this case Taran Adarsh, can be used and similar links have been used in many articles. Even "cite tweet" template is provided for sourcing purpose in the article body. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I know that, but wouldn't it be preferred to use a better source as a publication if it can be found? Someone once expressed qualms about using tweets as sources at WT:ICTF. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: I myself never liked tweets as sources and have talked against it many times. But it seems some new editors are using "verified tweets" across multiple articles. For now, I'm going to delete the tweet from the marketing part since it is NOT dated "8 March". The infobox can be kept I believe since it talks about the release date. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- K, thanks. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Forgot to mention this policy as per which, verified tweets can be used as sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure if that policy would apply here as it specifically mentions self-published primary sources, and Taran Adarsh or any analyst isn't a primary source (If they were, we shouldn't be using them for financials as that would lead to another issue on corruption in Indian cinema). For now, I will abstain from removing verified account Twitter sources, as you say. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Forgot to mention this policy as per which, verified tweets can be used as sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- K, thanks. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: I myself never liked tweets as sources and have talked against it many times. But it seems some new editors are using "verified tweets" across multiple articles. For now, I'm going to delete the tweet from the marketing part since it is NOT dated "8 March". The infobox can be kept I believe since it talks about the release date. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I know that, but wouldn't it be preferred to use a better source as a publication if it can be found? Someone once expressed qualms about using tweets as sources at WT:ICTF. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan:It will be a primary source since he had uploaded it. Consider, you write a book which has an image made by somebody else, YYour book will be a primary source for the image - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi
@Fylindfotberserk: Since You have reverted the edit. Does this article obey Wikipedia rule ? Almost all links are dead. There is no citation. I'm thinking about reporting the article and anyone who loves to keep the fake information PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @PerfectingNEI: Just wait, I'll discuss with you tomorrow. As per WP:STATUSQUO, you cannot delete large chunks of content from a longstanding article in one go without discussion. Discuss first. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: See brother , Koch tribe is aboriginal tribe of India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Rajbongshi are either very different people or section of Koch-Mech people who write Rajbanshi title. So, Rajbanshi can be treated as section of Koch or Rajbongshi are just title of some unknown origin people. Koch tribe have history. Koch tribe is government recognised ST in Meghalaya. In my opinion, Koch people page should exist because Koch is government notified scheduled tribe. Rajbongshi is just title with different origin. These Rajbongshi people have redirected Koch people page into Rajbongshi page. So, Koch tribe can't be search easily. Koch tribe is being hidden by Rajbongshi people. In simple word, Koch tribe is scheduled tribe with history and known origin . But Rajbongshi are people with unknown origin. Rajbongshi are pretending to be koch but Rajbongshi don't use the word koch. They deleting koch name from wikipedia which is fastest source to get any information. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you say is your own POV though I believe there existed a separate Koch article. Anywayu discuss on talk page of Rajbongshi and I'll try to request experienced editors to check those articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: See brother , Koch tribe is aboriginal tribe of India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Rajbongshi are either very different people or section of Koch-Mech people who write Rajbanshi title. So, Rajbanshi can be treated as section of Koch or Rajbongshi are just title of some unknown origin people. Koch tribe have history. Koch tribe is government recognised ST in Meghalaya. In my opinion, Koch people page should exist because Koch is government notified scheduled tribe. Rajbongshi is just title with different origin. These Rajbongshi people have redirected Koch people page into Rajbongshi page. So, Koch tribe can't be search easily. Koch tribe is being hidden by Rajbongshi people. In simple word, Koch tribe is scheduled tribe with history and known origin . But Rajbongshi are people with unknown origin. Rajbongshi are pretending to be koch but Rajbongshi don't use the word koch. They deleting koch name from wikipedia which is fastest source to get any information. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Changing the name of article
Punjabi Ekta Party is registered as Punjab Ekta Party by election commission of india So please help in changing the name to Punjab Ekta Party. Kumarsambhrd (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Kumarsambhrd: Can you provide a link from the Election commission of India which says the name is "Punjab Ekta Party". It will be needed to justify the name change. Of all the references in the article, 3 says "Punjabi" and 2 says "Punjab". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
i have a pdf file for that
- @Kumarsambhrd: Don't you have a link of the PDF file? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: https://eci.gov.in/candidate-political-parties/list-of-political-parties/ In this you will see the latest notice of 5th april. When you download it finally SI no. 2330 Punjab Ekta Party can be clearly seen.
- @Kumarsambhrd: I've changed the name as per your suggestion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: same goes for Punjab Front it has been registered as Nawaan Punjab Party
Please change the name. Link is same which i have given earlier https://eci.gov.in/candidate-political-parties/list-of-political-parties/
- @Kumarsambhrd: The last one (Punjab Ekta Party) was a small cosmetic change (only one letter 'i') and many citations in the article were already naming it "Punjab Ekta Party" beside ECI, and also the "redirect" was simple. So the name change could be done easily. In case of Punjab Front, the name change you are suggesting is totally different "Nawan Punjab Party". Secondly, you have to provide reliable source that Punjab Front = Nawaan Punjab Party since no source in the Punjab Front article calls it "Nawan Punjab Party". Thirdly, it is likely a lot of election related articles are using the name "Punjab Front", so if we change the article name, it will link to a redlinker (no article). Fourth, you have to convince a lot of people, the contributors and creator of the article as well as other 2019 election articles for the change. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Need Help
I want you too block the user ShangNam who is adding fake website link at citation #7 pretending to be Government website (without gov.in domain) in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachit_Borphukan
- @PerfectingNEI: The Vikaspedia article is a wiki so technically should be unreliable as per WP:UGC but it is run by Government of India so confusion arises. I've opened a discussion regarding its validity on WP:RS. You can check it. On a side note, http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/lachit-borphukan-a-great-unknown-son-of-sanatan-dharma/ used in the article seems unreliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binit14 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: )
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binit14 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: ). IanDBeacon (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Jannat Zubair Rahmani
- @Fylindfotberserk: I'm not agree of your edit on Jannat Zubair Rahmani. Her brother Ayaan is notable! Ayaan played roles in many tv shows as a child actor and he was also appeared in film Gully Boy and Ayaan has 2 million followers on TikTok. - CptViraj (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| I am many times as co-incidence while on editing and stopping Vandalism like in Saaho on checking history come across to you doing same. Accept the Barnstar for your Anti-vandalism work. Lots of Love Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
@Manupriy Ahluwalia: Thank you very much sir from the bottom of my heart. Happy editing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox
@Fylindfotberserk: I'll use sandbox for test editings from now. Actually I had not clear idea about use of sandbox. I'm learning, thanks for the suggestion. Sourik8 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of reliable Indian Government sourced content from Indian state articles
Can we continue the discussion about Maharashtra geography, and Goa. Why Britannica has to be the only source for discussing states? In Goa, we should write southwestern like it is written for Kerala and Karnataka. In Andhra Pradesh, it was written southeast and Telangana is centre south. Everywhere in Wikipedia, many places are written like this. So why we cannot write more than one direction for Maharashtra and Goa also? BelgaumGoan (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Oh somebody has deleted it in the Goa article again. Kindly revert it back. As for Maharashtra, let it stay that way. That's what the experienced editors agreed to in WP:IN. As you've probably seen, I was advocating in favor of govt. sources after you put them in articles, but it seems (suggested by all other editors) that the opening line/lead of a state article need to be as simple as possible and the govt. sources may not be correct from a wider global perspective probably since states are categorized in different zones by different institutes. So I'd respect the consensus.
Why Britannica has to be the only source for discussing states?
. Exactly that were my words in the WP:IN and in the User's talk page who initially deleted it. But atleast the Britannica definition is not that specific. It covers wider geographical region. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)- Although they are experienced editors, it is not the right thing to ignore many sources which say Maharashtra is also south and centre. We have to continue the discussion. Otherwise, all states of South except tamil nadu have multiple directions written. Why are there different rules for them? I am also adding a talk to Gotitbro. BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan:Technically south-west, etc is a geographical term and as I've explained to you already, the current opening sentence covers west, south and central regions. Personally, I feel Maharashtra is more west-central than south-central. IF you want, you can continue the discussion, but I'll say the current version is probably the best. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Central is not covered in opening sentence. Deccan and Peninsular point to southern.
- I think konkan is south west and other parts of Maharashtra is central south, but it is my opinion. But all of us agree central is also big part of Maharashtra. BelgaumGoan (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Kindly see Deccan plateau article. The opening line says
The Deccan Plateau[1] is a large plateau in western and southern India
and the second para saysIt extends over eight Indian states and encompasses a wide range of habitats, covering most of central and southern India
. As you can see western, southern and central are all covered. I rest my case. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)- @Fylindfotberserk: Okay, but so Deccan covers western also, right? Then why we have to say western separately, but not southern or central? If you don't add south or centre, atleast remove western which is also mentioned indirectly. BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's because "western peninsular part" is sourced from Britannica which according to all other editors is more reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Okay, but so Deccan covers western also, right? Then why we have to say western separately, but not southern or central? If you don't add south or centre, atleast remove western which is also mentioned indirectly. BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Kindly see Deccan plateau article. The opening line says
- @BelgaumGoan:Technically south-west, etc is a geographical term and as I've explained to you already, the current opening sentence covers west, south and central regions. Personally, I feel Maharashtra is more west-central than south-central. IF you want, you can continue the discussion, but I'll say the current version is probably the best. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Although they are experienced editors, it is not the right thing to ignore many sources which say Maharashtra is also south and centre. We have to continue the discussion. Otherwise, all states of South except tamil nadu have multiple directions written. Why are there different rules for them? I am also adding a talk to Gotitbro. BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I think we are going into circle because again I am saying Britannica is not the only source. We should include all the thousand other sources. But this time I am going to explain.
- Only one editor Gotitbro said that only the Britannica source should be used. I think other users, like Abecadere are okay to consider other source and mention other geography directions.
- According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Citing sources it is supposed to mention all different sources. You should not copy-paste from one source only. Entire first paragraph of Maharashtra is almost just copied from Britannica.
- If you are using Britannica source, why didn't you quote exactly how Britannica said? Britannica said that "occupying a substantial portion of the Deccan plateau" before it said "western peninsular part". It sounds like small difference but I think it means that Deccan plateau is more significant identity of Maharashtra than western peninsular part as why it is mentioned before. And I agree.
- Britannica also said in the western peninsular part "of the subcontinent", not even India. Subcontinent means all of South Asia, its different from saying India. Since you wanted to say about India, so definitely you should also consult another source which mentions directly India.
- Britannica is also saying different things about Maharashtra.
- Britannica article on Mumbai says Maharashtra is southwestern state. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mumbai
- Britannica Kids article of Maharashtra said it is west-central. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Maharashtra/328879
- Marathi language of western and central India. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marathi-language
- Britannica said that Gondwana is only central India, and some part of Maharashtra is Gondwana. So Britannica says at a least part of Maharashtra is central. www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-historical-region-India
- I think your logic to use Britannica is it is a encyclopedia. There are other encyclopedias. They are not as much famous but still they are also written by experts.
- https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/maharashtra State in west central India
- https://www.ancient.eu/article/874/ellora-caves/ Ellora is a sacred site in Maharastra, central India.
- And why using Britannica rule is not applying to other articles, South India states? Telangana is having very similar opening line to Maharashtra, "Telangana is a state in India situated on the centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau." but still it mentions different directions. For Telangana you do not remove south and centre if it is written as Deccan?
- So many thousand of news articles and government sources are there. Kautilya3 says do not give a preference to the government source. But also it was wrong to do opposite if you are completely ignoring government source. Government of India source is at least as much reliable as British Encyclopedia. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Probably you've seen me fight with GotitBro regarding the use of Britannica and inclusion of multiple regions in his talk page as well as in WP:IN. He was not totally in favor of Britannica either. Probably you missed that Kautilya and Abecedare were not in favor of using Govt. sources. What can I do if the majority are against multi-regional definition in the lead? Abecedare agreed on the definition of Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh put by me as per Britannica and but you can see Fowler changed UP back to "northern" India from "north-west part" of India. As per him Wikipedia is an art not a science and provided some logic which is believable but didn't comment on why Germany is both a Western and Central European country. Previously, it was about Poland as well. I believe it would be best to discuss in the Maharashtra talk page itself similar to what has been done in the Poland talkpage. It is difficult to change something which is longstanding if the majority do not agree. However, Abecedare and Fowler seemed to have agreed to inclusion of govt. definitions somewhere in the article "body" under "Administration" perhaps. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I saw Kautilya3 only commented at beginning,they said gov't source should not be preferred but did not say it should be excluded.Did Kautilya3 comment somewhere else they agree with current version of Maharashtra article?
- Where are govt definitions later in article? And much more people are reading first line than a paragraph in middle of article. So from neutral perspective if all definitions should be considered then all should be added at beginning.
- Am also adding talk to Gotitbro and Abecedare. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BelgaumGoan: Probably you've seen me fight with GotitBro regarding the use of Britannica and inclusion of multiple regions in his talk page as well as in WP:IN. He was not totally in favor of Britannica either. Probably you missed that Kautilya and Abecedare were not in favor of using Govt. sources. What can I do if the majority are against multi-regional definition in the lead? Abecedare agreed on the definition of Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh put by me as per Britannica and but you can see Fowler changed UP back to "northern" India from "north-west part" of India. As per him Wikipedia is an art not a science and provided some logic which is believable but didn't comment on why Germany is both a Western and Central European country. Previously, it was about Poland as well. I believe it would be best to discuss in the Maharashtra talk page itself similar to what has been done in the Poland talkpage. It is difficult to change something which is longstanding if the majority do not agree. However, Abecedare and Fowler seemed to have agreed to inclusion of govt. definitions somewhere in the article "body" under "Administration" perhaps. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Always appreciate when you hit that "thank" button. :) StaticVapor message me! 08:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @STATicVapor: Thanks man. That was just a small token of appreciation for the awesome work you are doing in Pro-wrestling related articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Wrestling stats
I see you revertedmy edit of Lex Luger's page, I have to say the height you are using is inaccurate. I've been a wrestling fan for over 30 years and have cross referenced multiple cites confirming a lot of WWE's official stats on their site are wrong. WWE while being the official source is not always the most credible. Many of the stats they're using are outdated from wrestler profiles 20+ years ago. If you are a wrestling fan I encourage you to do some research and examine the stats in comparison to cross referenced sources from several other sites and I think you will see they consistently don't match up. Hunterb212 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Hunterb212: As per WP:PW, the industry specific sites are considered to be the most reliable, so WWE.com is superior. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said you should do some more research in regards to that, their stats are outdated and just because they are the official source does not make them the most accurate. I've been wrestling fan probably longer than you and have seen stats, heard them announced and researched them extensively. Wwe.com has several stats that are outdated and erroneous but if you choose to believe everything they say without question, that's your prerogative.
- @Hunterb212: It doesn't matter what you or I believe. I'd repeat that the industry specific sources are considered most reliable here in Wikipedia. And in reliaty, Luger today doesn't look anywhere near 275 lbs, as suggested by your wrestling-data source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said you should do some more research in regards to that, their stats are outdated and just because they are the official source does not make them the most accurate. I've been wrestling fan probably longer than you and have seen stats, heard them announced and researched them extensively. Wwe.com has several stats that are outdated and erroneous but if you choose to believe everything they say without question, that's your prerogative.
Hello! I see that other users are repeatedly trying to insert a birthdate for this actor, citing Instagram. Of course you are correct that Instagram is not regarded as a reliable source. But it might be helpful for you to point that out, in your edit summaries or on the talk page, instead of just reverting. It would be even better if a reliable source could be found for his birthdate! Meanwhile I have semiprotected the page for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Thanks a lot sir. I've written "Unsourced" multiple times in the edit summary before. Even if it is Instagram, the IPs don't seem to bother tagging a ref either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed the Twitter reference here as a more reliable source (Firstpost) was found for the information. As per Wikipedia:Twitter-EL, even if it isn't illegal to use Twitter as a source sometimes, a more reliable publication would be preferred, yes? Since the information can easily be proved from other sources, can the Twitter link be removed? Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Actually twitter links from verified accounts of a notable person, in this case Taran Adarsh, can be used and similar links have been used in many articles. Even "cite tweet" template is provided for sourcing purpose in the article body. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I know that, but wouldn't it be preferred to use a better source as a publication if it can be found? Someone once expressed qualms about using tweets as sources at WT:ICTF. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: I myself never liked tweets as sources and have talked against it many times. But it seems some new editors are using "verified tweets" across multiple articles. For now, I'm going to delete the tweet from the marketing part since it is NOT dated "8 March". The infobox can be kept I believe since it talks about the release date. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- K, thanks. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Forgot to mention this policy as per which, verified tweets can be used as sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure if that policy would apply here as it specifically mentions self-published primary sources, and Taran Adarsh or any analyst isn't a primary source (If they were, we shouldn't be using them for financials as that would lead to another issue on corruption in Indian cinema). For now, I will abstain from removing verified account Twitter sources, as you say. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: Forgot to mention this policy as per which, verified tweets can be used as sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- K, thanks. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeluxeVegan: I myself never liked tweets as sources and have talked against it many times. But it seems some new editors are using "verified tweets" across multiple articles. For now, I'm going to delete the tweet from the marketing part since it is NOT dated "8 March". The infobox can be kept I believe since it talks about the release date. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I know that, but wouldn't it be preferred to use a better source as a publication if it can be found? Someone once expressed qualms about using tweets as sources at WT:ICTF. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan:It will be a primary source since he had uploaded it. Consider, you write a book which has an image made by somebody else, YYour book will be a primary source for the image - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi
@Fylindfotberserk: Since You have reverted the edit. Does this article obey Wikipedia rule ? Almost all links are dead. There is no citation. I'm thinking about reporting the article and anyone who loves to keep the fake information PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @PerfectingNEI: Just wait, I'll discuss with you tomorrow. As per WP:STATUSQUO, you cannot delete large chunks of content from a longstanding article in one go without discussion. Discuss first. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: See brother , Koch tribe is aboriginal tribe of India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Rajbongshi are either very different people or section of Koch-Mech people who write Rajbanshi title. So, Rajbanshi can be treated as section of Koch or Rajbongshi are just title of some unknown origin people. Koch tribe have history. Koch tribe is government recognised ST in Meghalaya. In my opinion, Koch people page should exist because Koch is government notified scheduled tribe. Rajbongshi is just title with different origin. These Rajbongshi people have redirected Koch people page into Rajbongshi page. So, Koch tribe can't be search easily. Koch tribe is being hidden by Rajbongshi people. In simple word, Koch tribe is scheduled tribe with history and known origin . But Rajbongshi are people with unknown origin. Rajbongshi are pretending to be koch but Rajbongshi don't use the word koch. They deleting koch name from wikipedia which is fastest source to get any information. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you say is your own POV though I believe there existed a separate Koch article. Anywayu discuss on talk page of Rajbongshi and I'll try to request experienced editors to check those articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: See brother , Koch tribe is aboriginal tribe of India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Rajbongshi are either very different people or section of Koch-Mech people who write Rajbanshi title. So, Rajbanshi can be treated as section of Koch or Rajbongshi are just title of some unknown origin people. Koch tribe have history. Koch tribe is government recognised ST in Meghalaya. In my opinion, Koch people page should exist because Koch is government notified scheduled tribe. Rajbongshi is just title with different origin. These Rajbongshi people have redirected Koch people page into Rajbongshi page. So, Koch tribe can't be search easily. Koch tribe is being hidden by Rajbongshi people. In simple word, Koch tribe is scheduled tribe with history and known origin . But Rajbongshi are people with unknown origin. Rajbongshi are pretending to be koch but Rajbongshi don't use the word koch. They deleting koch name from wikipedia which is fastest source to get any information. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Changing the name of article
Punjabi Ekta Party is registered as Punjab Ekta Party by election commission of india So please help in changing the name to Punjab Ekta Party. Kumarsambhrd (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Kumarsambhrd: Can you provide a link from the Election commission of India which says the name is "Punjab Ekta Party". It will be needed to justify the name change. Of all the references in the article, 3 says "Punjabi" and 2 says "Punjab". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
i have a pdf file for that
- @Kumarsambhrd: Don't you have a link of the PDF file? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: https://eci.gov.in/candidate-political-parties/list-of-political-parties/ In this you will see the latest notice of 5th april. When you download it finally SI no. 2330 Punjab Ekta Party can be clearly seen.
- @Kumarsambhrd: I've changed the name as per your suggestion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: same goes for Punjab Front it has been registered as Nawaan Punjab Party
Please change the name. Link is same which i have given earlier https://eci.gov.in/candidate-political-parties/list-of-political-parties/
- @Kumarsambhrd: The last one (Punjab Ekta Party) was a small cosmetic change (only one letter 'i') and many citations in the article were already naming it "Punjab Ekta Party" beside ECI, and also the "redirect" was simple. So the name change could be done easily. In case of Punjab Front, the name change you are suggesting is totally different "Nawan Punjab Party". Secondly, you have to provide reliable source that Punjab Front = Nawaan Punjab Party since no source in the Punjab Front article calls it "Nawan Punjab Party". Thirdly, it is likely a lot of election related articles are using the name "Punjab Front", so if we change the article name, it will link to a redlinker (no article). Fourth, you have to convince a lot of people, the contributors and creator of the article as well as other 2019 election articles for the change. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Need Help
I want you too block the user ShangNam who is adding fake website link at citation #7 pretending to be Government website (without gov.in domain) in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachit_Borphukan
- @PerfectingNEI: The Vikaspedia article is a wiki so technically should be unreliable as per WP:UGC but it is run by Government of India so confusion arises. I've opened a discussion regarding its validity on WP:RS. You can check it. On a side note, http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/lachit-borphukan-a-great-unknown-son-of-sanatan-dharma/ used in the article seems unreliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binit14 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: )
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Binit14 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: ). IanDBeacon (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Changes on my own page
Hi, this is meera chopra. I have a wikipedia page which has got some incorrect info. I tried changing it and then i got a msg from Fylindfotberserk that my changes have been reverted bak.. its my page and i need correct info on that. Plz help how to do it Meeraa chopraa (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC) @Meeraa chopraa: Wikipedia needs reliable sources to support content. And you also changed backlinks for some films in the article which caused the wikilinks to go 'red' so I reverted them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
page protection
Don't you think we need a semi-protection on Mamata Banerjee ? DeoxysX (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @DeoxysX: Yes definitely. I'll request for it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I forgot. It is already Pending Changes Protected. That'll do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, @Fylindfotberserk: One user User:Chaipau is constantly reverting my edits on the page - Ahom Kingdom. He is reverting my edits so repeatedly that I am unable to add the references due to the Edit Conflicts. The person is applying his own point of view; while the Sources Said the opposite. Should we follow the references or His own theories?? Can you stop him from doing such kind of reverting which is WP:BITE. Thankyou.--ShangNam (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @ShangNam: I am not sure you are a newcomer, since there has been a sudden peak in the interest in Ahom related pages with many new user names, all pushing the same agenda, which is to replace Assamese names with new spelling system of the Ahom names. For example, you are trying to replace the name "Ahom Rajya" in Assamese with a non-standard Ahom spelling for Mong-Dun-Shun-Kham (you are trying to insert "Muong Doon Soon Kham"). This cannot be the native name because the Ahom language is dead, and for a great part of the Ahom kingdom since the 16th century, the court language was Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @ShangNam:, I've to agree with Chaipau here. Firstly, "Muong Doon Soon Kham" is not a common name, Secondly, it is well documented that Ahoms had people of native ancestry in their ranks. Only the aristocracy might had some purity. Totally comparable to the Mughals. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faizabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
MICA (institute)
I see you have reverted one of my edits. The #MeToo controversy mentioned on its page has nothing to do with the educational institute. As per the reports, the faculty member's name has been dragged into the controversy by an outsider and the incident didn't happen in the campus. Edwige9 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Edwige9: But the institute got involved by agreeing to take action against the faculty. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Yes, but it is an ongoing controversy and it is 'alleged', no final judgement has been made. Moreover, because the institute agreed to investigate the matter, does it qualify to be added on the institute's page? I feel it should be avoided as the matter is under review and the institute has no direct involvement. Edwige9 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Edwige9:Since the incident happened outside MICA premises, the logical answer would be not to include it in the article, but MICA has set up a committee of 3 women apart from the existing Gender Equality and Anti-Sexual Harassment committee. This is what is confusing me. You know what, I believe should remove it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Edwige9:Thank you! It was nice interacting with you. Edwige9 (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Edwige9:Since the incident happened outside MICA premises, the logical answer would be not to include it in the article, but MICA has set up a committee of 3 women apart from the existing Gender Equality and Anti-Sexual Harassment committee. This is what is confusing me. You know what, I believe should remove it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: Yes, but it is an ongoing controversy and it is 'alleged', no final judgement has been made. Moreover, because the institute agreed to investigate the matter, does it qualify to be added on the institute's page? I feel it should be avoided as the matter is under review and the institute has no direct involvement. Edwige9 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:The Disciples of Apocalypse has been nominated for discussion
Category:The Disciples of Apocalypse, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanksgiving
@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you very much for giving me a Barnstar. Hope I'll do more great works in Wikipedia in future :-) Sourik8 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sourik8: You are most welcome. You deserved that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Pls revert edits by DivyaSharma at Prince Narula. They reverted a lot of edits containing reliable sources. The user is a sock of KaranSharma. Also please ask for a CU so that they can be blocked.
- Again using there own sock edit blames on others and lying saying Im a sock. I don't even know who this karan sharma is. I am not the one who are doing edit warring. They are just not happy and upset that they can't disrupt the article thats why they are blaming other people for no apparent reason when they are at fault. Divya Sharma (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let me see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I also think this is a sock of User:Mallika800
- @DivyaSharma3210S: If you think so, put a complaint at WP:SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- But I am not this user the user is basically the person who got blocked and then when he knows that he cant disrupt he blames all his sock edits on other users.
- @DivyaSharma3210S: I get it. I'm asking you to open up an investigation at WP:SPI if you think that IP is User:Dimpletisha. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- But I am not this user the user is basically the person who got blocked and then when he knows that he cant disrupt he blames all his sock edits on other users.
- @DivyaSharma3210S: If you think so, put a complaint at WP:SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I also think this is a sock of User:Mallika800
- Let me see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Fylindfotberserk! Can you check an article Puneeth Rajkumar and find references? Thank you! --178.71.212.192 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment on C Krishnakumar’s talk page
Hello—I noticed that you removed a comment in what I assume is Malayalam from Talk:C Krishnakumar; do you happen to know whether it said anything useful or did you remove it because it is not in English? Docentation (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Docentation: I removed it because it is not in English. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: I see; in any case Google Translate suggests that it was a compilation of unsourced statements about the fellow. Docentation (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Docentation: Yeah. I've check in Google Transalte. Since it didn't include any reference and most users wouldn't understand it anyway, I've removed it - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: I see; in any case Google Translate suggests that it was a compilation of unsourced statements about the fellow. Docentation (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)