Jump to content

User talk:Gazoth/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gazoth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hi, I have noticed that you have been removing IDRW has WP:SPS and I agree with this. But why are you not removing LiveFist sources as well for the same articles. Even LiveFist does not qualify for WP:RS and is not acceptable under Wikipedia Policy. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: While you are right about LiveFist not being WP:RS, it is also more reliable than IDRW which means that there are often other sources which can be used to corroborate the statements. That is usually not the case with IDRW's self-published articles and as a result they are much more easier to remove. Once IDRW has been dealt with, I'll tackle others like LiveFist. Gazoth (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I have removed LiveFist from some of the pages but both these sources are pretty prevalent. I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, that LiveFist is more reliable, since it also used to be a blog back in the day before it became a metamorphosed into it's current avatar. Nonetheless, I appreciate your edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: My assessment is based on the fact that he is a professional journalist in the relevant field of defence reporting. Quoting from WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. He meets the first requirement by being a professional journalist, but fails the second as he doesn't have any significant number of third-party publications outside of opinion pieces. Of course, meeting these requirements is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Gazoth (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Gazoth I disagree with the fact that he is a defense expert but a defense correspondent which is different. A defense expert is someone who has published work and that is why both those conditions are important. Secondly, much of the content he publishes on LiveFist is almost never published in India Today (he is consulting editor with them) which give credence to the fact that his content cannot be independently verified. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Delhi-class destroyer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Type 53 and BEL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Tejas ferry range

Tejas carry 2458 kg of internal fuel and can carry 2×1200 litre and 1×800 drop tanks. How can Tejas ferry range will be limited to only 1750 km. There are other independent sources like http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tejas/, http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/hal_tejas.htm Which states that Tejas range is 3000 km, Uttam mahatta (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Uttam mahatta: If you find it hard to believe that the ferry range of Tejas is 1750 km, look at its Bahrain trip. It had a refuelling stop at Muscat while flying from Jamnagar to Sakhir Air Base in Bahrain. If the ferry range was indeed 3000 km, it could have flown directly to Bahrain from Jamnagar as the distance between the two places is about 2100 km. Instead they had a refuelling stop Muscat, keeping the distance between stopovers under 1750 km. As I mentioned before, Airforce-Technology is not a reliable source and the same goes for Military-Today too. If you have other reliable sources like books, journals, news reports from reputable newspapers like The Hindu, The Economic Times, Business Standard, Indian Express etc. then the numbers quoted from those sources can be accepted. Gazoth (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/2016/february/din-23Feb2016.pdf http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/pf/Primers-368005-Primersdet-Air_force_DRDO_pleased_with_Tejas_performance_at_Bahrain.htm#.WlsV0q6WbIU

On the first leg of its journey to Bahrain , from Bangalore to Jamnagar, The Tejas already covered 1800 kms(equipped with 2 drop tanks). That does not mean that Tejas's range with 2 drop tanks is 1800 kms. When I have to drive 500 kms, i will make sure i have enough fuel for atleast 700-800 kms. This applies more so for aircrafts as several contingencies may come in the way during a flight.

Taking a break at Muscat does not imply low fuel. It can also imply a tired pilot who has already flown 3000 kms (2 legs - 1800kms and 1200 kms) over the last 2 days, who is well on schedule to reach its destination on time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.44.39 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User Pratikus

Hey, is there any wikipedia policy against the "Badge of Honor" section at user talk:Pratikus? It seems not only contrary to the purpose of the talk pages, but rather inflammatory and rude. Garuda28 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Garuda28: I'm not aware of any such policy or guideline. Anyway, if a user wants to be rude they can always find a way that is not prohibited by any rule or guideline. —Gazoth (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias on Rudaj organisation article

I never said it was a mitigation for being violent all I said was that there was a code of honour previously not covered you need to check your own neutral point of view IMHO(in my humble opinion), correct me if I am falsely accusing you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SadiqKhanFan: You wrote although they are more violent than the Sicilian Mafia, they have their own code of ethnic loyalty and omerta, which gives the impression that having "ethnic loyalty" is a positive attribute and mitigates their violent behaviour, which is not supported by the ref you gave. My linking of Wikipedia's NPOV page was to not insinuate that you were biased, rather it was to indicate that such an impression is highly favourable to the Rudaj Organization. —Gazoth (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

List of active Indian military aircraft

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on List of active Indian military aircraft. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users'. If they're certain changes you want to make, then do them individually, as opposed to reverting the who article. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FOX 52 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: I think you should read some of the pages that you have linked. You have reverted a lot of the improvements that have been made since December with no prior discussion in the talk page. It was up to you to go to the talk page after the first revert, but you have never made any attempts to start a discussion. Stop trolling and obtain a consensus first before reverting others' changes. —Gazoth (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Initiating discussion regarding Odisha

I saw the recent back-n-forth between you and Murugama at the Odisha article. In the edit summaries you write "fictitious refs" and "Discuss on talk page instead of repeatedly restoring disputed content". The editor did have malformed URLs in their initial edit but they later fixed this. I checked some of the references which turned out to be valid (good is a different question but that's a different discussion). The edits by the editor seem to be good faith edits by a newcomer and rather than trying to help them, you bit them with an edit warring warning template (which I've removed).

Please don't be so quick to accuse an editor of adding "fictitious refs". A neutral comment like "reference URLs don't work" is more appropriate and still assumes good faith. Also it appears you did not pay close enough attention to the edit history diffs in which some URLs were fixed. It should have been noticed the references could no longer be accused of being fictitious and you should have been welcoming a new editor rather than slapping them with a warning template. Although your warning template was given in good faith, I believe it was irresponsible and lacking good judgement and a bit of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. Given that you were accusing the references of being fake (a serious charge) while dealing with a new editor, there was no reason you couldn't have been pro-active and initiated a discussion either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. In particular, it would have been good to detail at least one references you claim was fake to keep me and others (especially Murugama) from having to guess. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: The initially malformed URLs were not an issue, I had no problems in accessing the sources. The text that they added was not a new addition, Rajrajh had added the same text (see this and subsequent edits) with almost same refs. I had attempted verification of the refs and when they failed, I had placed a failed verification tag. Rajrajh restored the old refs multiple times, each time along with an additional one, which again turned out to not support the statement. Considering this behaviour and other competence issues which eventually led to their ban, I had removed the entire text with the assumption that the book sources would turn out to be false too, in a series of edits. When a new editor restored the exact same paragraph without providing any additional justification, I felt that it was probably a sock of Rajrajh. That is why I started with a harsh warning template. In hindsight, I should have assumed good faith and I apologize for the rudeness. I have added a detailed explanation in the talk page of Odisha regarding the sources, although that was after I slapped the user warning template. —Gazoth (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. Anyhow, the user may not be a native speaker so that may require more patient collaboration but at the same time they may have more directly knowledge and expertise on the subject, which could be valuable in improving the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction to City name references within articles

Hi,

Needed your help in understanding - why not to correct the name of the city on the Wiki pages.. Why would this be tagged "UNNECESSARY" edit? 'Bengaluru' is the official name & is off late (Finally!!) becoming the commonly used term to refer to the city. Isn't it the right time to cascade this change? Wiki should be giving right information about the places right?

Also, within the same page there is inconsistency - where in there is a mix of references to the OLD name & NEW name.. Should this not be made consistent?

The article name is left unchanged & the Angicized version of the name is retained (sadly)

Ref: You have rolled back the 'initial set' of corrections I did on page - Karnataka

Appreciate any help..

Thanks, Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Prashanthi Vasishta

@Prashanthi Vasishta: There have been many discussions at Talk:Bangalore over this topic. The consensus has always been to keep Bangalore over Bengaluru, until the usage of Bengaluru exceeds that of Bangalore. The older discussions are listed just above the table of contents, if you want to go through them. —Gazoth (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Gazoth.. But, am still not convinced with this approach. If internet keeps referring to it as "Bangalore", the usage of "Bengaluru" may not exceed that of "Bangalore". Don't you agree? This is the transition time - we have to bring in this change.. And coming to consistency - should not all references be one of these - I go with "Bengaluru" of course, respecting my city's name. I can see some references to Bengaluru - which has already been approved on the page. The remaining refernces were what I wanted to make consistent.. I would be glad if you do not undo my changes this time..
Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Prashanthi Vasishta
@Prashanthi Vasishta: An encyclopedia, Wikipedia will always follow the common usage. If you want to lead a change, Wikipedia is the wrong place to do it. —Gazoth (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok.. You have still not commented anything about maintaining consistency in the encyclopedia.. am curious to know your opinion..
Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Prashanthi Vasishta
@Prashanthi Vasishta: I did not comment on it as I have edited the article to be consistent. —Gazoth (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I see around 7 references to Bengaluru & 30-40 references to Bangalore. This is what appeared to me as inconsistent. We can still have one base reference which is "Commonly" used (wrong actually) & replace the other references to the actual name of the city right? - that was what I had thought when I started editing. I wasn't aware that an actual Bengalurian has no right to say what is right. -- Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prashanthi Vasishta: All of the remaining references to Bengaluru are either in parenthesis to mention the official name, or they are team names such as Bengaluru FC. That is not inconsistency. All references in the article have to use the common name too, that is the intended effect of the policy. Mentioning it only for the first time is effectively bypassing it. Wikipedia aims to represent a world-wide view on subjects. This means that local people don't get to have an extra say over article content. —Gazoth (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic.. Prashanthi Vasishta (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

New Delhi History

This is how i will write if the article is given to me. I could not think of anything more. The author have written in the words exactly how i think of , can you summerise and write it on behalf of me if you know better how to write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.166.13 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@117.226.166.13: I think the content is a better fit for Kolkata rather than New Delhi. The events leading up the shift mostly happen in Kolkata and the major implications are also much more revelant to the Kolkata article. Do you still want me to go ahead with the addition? —Gazoth (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I Think this is a relevant addition for both Calcutta (now Kolkata) as well as New Delhi. This is the key reason for which British had to shift their capital from Calcutta to New Delhi. This is the foundational pre-history of Why New Delhi became the new capital. Other being the centralized location which was already mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.166.13 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@117.226.166.13: I have added the background to Kolkata. If you strongly feel that it needs a mention in the New Delhi page too, leave a message on its talk page and an editor that agrees with you will add it on your behalf. —Gazoth (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Gazoth! You created a thread called Name suffixes in CS1 templates at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


GODL-India

Hey Gazoth, I did see you have been using the new license for images on Commons. Just FYI, this now extends to any data from any of the Indian Government sites. What this translates to is most of the images which were being currently used as NFCC on the English Wikipedia can be moved to Commons under this license. A classic example is the image of Nirbhay missile you replace. The NFCC image being previously used was sourced from DRDO's website which also falls under this license now. I have tagged the image to be moved to commons. In the future, it is ideal that we tag these images for a move (if they are eligible) because otherwise they will be deleted from the English Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Are you sure that it overrides the copyright policies of individual websites? DRDO website's copyright policy forbids any kind of reproduction of material. Quoting from the document Contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from DRDO Headquarters. —Gazoth (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
If I understand the extent of GODL-India correctly, it should. None the less, I have tagged it for a move now. Once it is moved, I will discuss this with the admins there and will let you know on what the outcome was. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I don't think a move would be useful in this case. The original image is 2109 × 2765 while the imaged downscaled per NFCC is only 257 × 388. —Gazoth (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
True and I am aware of that. AFAIK, at least Wikimedia Commons keeps deleted images around (just not accessible). I suspect that something similar happens for NFCC images and the original resolution images (even though deleted) are around. I think it is at least worth a try to see how this goes. If it works successfully then it will save us a lot of effort for a huge bunch of other NFCC images which might otherwise deleted. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Sankalp-class offshore patrol vessel) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sankalp-class offshore patrol vessel, Gazoth!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced comment by Zapnath9

STOP Writing on peoples pages. It's called privacy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapnath9 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zapnath9: I am required to notify you of any report filed at administrators' noticeboards. All messages that have been left by me on your talk page have been mandatory notifications to inform you of your possible violations of Wikipedia policy. —Gazoth (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes in Assam Wikipedia Page

Assam is a large state in India with more than 30 Million people residing in the state. There are multiple tourist places of importance in the state. I added the most important places. The ones which are added are not the post important ones like nobody in Assam knows about the Panbari mosque. Its not a tourist place.

You have reverted the changes saying that the gallery images are way too many. How many you think are good number of images to be displayed in the gallery?

Also, I would like to know what Wikipedia policy/guidelines say about gallery images and if there is a maximum number of images which can be added to the gallery in a certain page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saumya.purkayastha: You should discuss these changes on Assam's talk page. I'll respond to your questions there. —Gazoth (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Partition of india

As you asked me that why I have included partition of India as a separate event so reason is that partition of india is part of Indian independence act and no body can change the history of its own, and Partition of India took place on 14 August when Pakistan was born as a separate nation within Indian boundaries. Subcontinent studies (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Subcontinent studies: You should reply on Talk:India, not here. —Gazoth (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Janaganamana

There has never been a Hindi version. The original parliament records don't mention of it - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810361/. There is no name of Hindi translator or no date later where a 'Hindi' version is adopted. The ministry site says: "The composition consisting of the words and music of the first stanza of the late poet Rabindra Nath Tagore’s song known as “Jana Gana Mana” is the National Anthem of India." (https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/NationalAnthem%28E%29_2.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckundu (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not the right place for this, I will reply at Talk:Jana Gana Mana. —Gazoth (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

GDP Data

Hii, Kindly add GDP data in Haryana article infobox as well as update GDP per capita data in West Bengal inside infobox. You can take help from List of Indian states and union territories by GDP and List of Indian states and union territories by GDP per capita.--223.223.137.224 (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. You can also place an edit request at the article talk pages using {{Edit semi-protected}} template for a quicker response. —Gazoth (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Refrain from using misleading edit summaries[1] by restoring gross misrepresentation of sources and POV pushing. My Lord (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@My Lord: Care to explain what part of my edit summary seemed misleading to you? —Gazoth (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
You called my revert a "hostile" and "bad revert", but my edit wasn't such since the revert I made was in accordance with WP:BRD and attempt to minimize the POV pushing that this article has been attracted to for years. My Lord (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@My Lord: No, I said that your edit summary seems hostile. I judged your revert to be bad as it did not offer a useful explanation of why you were reverting. Both are clearly my opinions of your revert and I fail to see how an opinion could be misleading. —Gazoth (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

तव vs. तब

See the talk page for Jana Gana Mana. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ap formation date http://www.andhrajyothy.com/artical?SID=18298&SupID=26

2June 2014 or October 1st Vamsikrish1331 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vamsikrish1331: You should discuss this on Talk:Andhra Pradesh. My talk page is not the right place for this. —Gazoth (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Karnataka

Hello, I seriously didn't understood the reason why you reverted my edits in the page - Karnataka. Can you please explain?? --Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnbeatable (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheUnbeatable: As I explained in the edit summary, I felt that the addition of pictures added very little in terms of recognizability of symbols but hurt readability as every item was now split into multiple lines. If visual identification is required, the reader can visit the linked page to see pictures. With the introduction of page previews, you can also hover over links to see a much larger picture while browsing from a desktop or a laptop. If you disagree, please open a discussion at Talk:Karnataka to get opinions from other editors too. —Gazoth (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: Thank you for your explanation. I didn't understood the things you explained in edit summary, hence I trobled you here. There are many similar pages with picture identification so I thought of adding those images there. I will definately discuss and come to a conclusion. Thank you once again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnbeatable (talk • contribs) 04:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@TheUnbeatable: Please don't forget to sign your messages on the talk page by ending your message with four tildes (~~~~). —Gazoth (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Kerala Lotteries

That Kerala_State_Lotteries has no sufficient reference for Lottery results, That's why I added a web page which is having daily results.

I am a contributor to Wikipedia and helping it to improve further, as a Keralite and a worker in the lottery department. I have some responsibility to improve the wiki pages of Kerala_State_Lotteries.

please reinstate the URL which I added. and it's not spam. I hope You Understand.

we can work together to improve wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibipaul (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sibipaul: You cannot add links to third-party websites for lottery results per WP:ELNO. Even if the results are not published by an official website, there is still no need to add a links to unofficial websites. The Kerala State Lotteries page has a lot of spammers linking their website that unofficially publishes results and I assumed that you were yet another example of the same. If you are not associated with mykeralalottery.com and it was just a good-faith attempt to improve the page, I apologize for the harsh message on your talk page. I hope you understand why mykeralalottery.com, an unofficial website, cannot be linked from Kerala State Lotteries article. —Gazoth (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Mykeralalottery.com is a reference website. and Keralalotteries.com is Official Website of Directorate of Kerala Lottery Department. Official Directorate website Publishing Results as PDF Document.
Main Stream News Papers publishing pages on next day. But, Main Stream media not publishing Results on their Online portals. That is the Reason we Should use a reference URL of a site, where Results Could show a Web page.
Take it as a Reference. and not the Official Website.
as you said, There are so many sites showing results and they are spam. I have also noticed the, you are almost right. I could not find a Clean website, all of them are with ads and so many unclear images and miss leading pages to different sites.
but This one seems Good and Having Quality Pages with Clean Interface.
Also, this Page needs some citation. That's why I added a reference URL. This website Justify to Kerala Lottery Result.
I am sure, this Site is not Official... But It can be a Reference to Kerala Lottery Results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibipaul (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The standard for references is WP:RS, which mykeralalottery.com does not meet. Since it is not a reliable reference, any link to the website is treated as an external link. An unofficial website publishing lottery results is not considered to be acceptable per WP:EL and cannot be included. —Gazoth (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Translation (Nag=Snake)

Hi. I write to inquire what source do we/I need to mention for translation of basic words. Eg: 'Dog' = 'কুকুর'. I ask because my correction got reverted. Thank you. Alpha (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC) 001 Alpha

@001 Alpha: A source for Nag's meaning is already present in the page. —Gazoth (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP List Update

Hi, Please check the List of Indian states and union territories by GDP per capita and List of Indian states and union territories by GDP both has been updated by IP using source of MOSPI data.--223.223.130.146 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think those pages should be using constant prices too, otherwise the data across years is not really comparable. I'll get a discussion started on those pages towards the change. If there is no consensus, feel free to restore the current prices data on Karnataka. —Gazoth (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked around a few articles and it seems that using current prices is the convention. On geographical articles, it makes sense since comparison across years is not required. I'll restore your edit with a self revert. —Gazoth (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We need your input! Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas

Your name was found on Feedback request service Politics, government, and law. Please join the discussion here and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's position concerning Hamas. Thanks! Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am Trying to add These References

Also The ANother site has posted this article at first.. so I wish to noticed that url into this...

if you think its relevant then approve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.31.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

These are mainstream newspaper publications, which are perfectly fine for usage as references. —Gazoth (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human evolution

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human evolution. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

I appreciate your feedback on T.N.; I had honestly forgotten about MOS:IS re: Indic scripts.

However, I question the "overlinking" as I did not add a single link (nor did you remove any), and I hardly think adjusting capitalisation on Nilgiri Mountains nor adjusting "Indian peninsula" to "subcontinent" is WP:NOTBROKEN (it's not a peninsula, it's a subcontinent!). I also have no idea why you'd restore ''• tamiḻ nāḍu'' ''<abbr>?</abbr>'' literally 'The Land of Tamils' or 'Tamil Country' - errant •, unexplained ?, and wordy translation with "literally" using ' instead of quotation marks. Ogress 18:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ogress: The overlinking was not your addition, I removed the wikilink to theatre that you adjusted. Since all of your link changes involved replacements of redirects with article links, I thought that you were "fixing" them. It is always a bit difficult to judge intention in edits. If you meant to change them in wikitext too, go ahead and redo the edit. Regarding the lead sentence, I didn't give it much thought. Since I saw an addition of Indic script and change of "Tamil Nadu" to "Tamiḻ Nāḍu" in the lead sentence, I reverted the entire change. You can remove the rest, the dot, question mark and the word literally. My objections had nothing to do with them. —Gazoth (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright! Ogress 18:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ogress: Why did you remove "The Land of Tamils" from the translation? —Gazoth (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, thought that was agreed; I can add it back in (or you can). It's redundant, basically. Ogress 18:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

About India HDI ranking

Hi, please update the List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index with updated and accurate source. You have reverted Maharashtra HDI data because full data was not published but in all Indian state article "Live Mint" source has been mentioned rather than the "IAMR" source. Please clarify which source should be granted and more accurate moreover up to date. Also all India state article same must be applied.--115.96.128.254 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2015 data is an estimate by a newspaper. I don't think that it is reliable enough to be used in other articles. Putting that aside, the estimate needs to be calculated for all states to arrive at state rankings. If HDI is estimated only for 17 states, the ranking becomes meaningless. —Gazoth (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
If you see any article using the ranking from 2015 data estimated by Livemint rather than the 2008 data from Planning Commission, you can either bring it to my notice or change it yourself to the 2008 ranking. —Gazoth (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
India states articles which have used "Live Mint"source for HDI ranking are Kerala, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Gujarat, Karnataka, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Odisha. Can these two sources be used for HDI rank Source 1, Source 2 or Source 3. Moreover I have removed "Live Mint" source from the main India states HDI list.--115.96.132.28 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The first source is from UNDP India, so it is reliable. However, it does not calculate HDI for all states, so don't use it for rankings. You can source the HDI numbers from it for List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index article. The second source seems to be an academic paper and has been cited by a few other papers too. It can be considered to be reliable too. The third source, Global Data Lab, is from a research institution in Radboud University. It can be considered to be reliable too. It also looks like Global Data Lab's estimates have been recognized, if not endorsed by UNDP. Both source 2 and 3 can be used for HDI rankings in state articles, but since the third one is newer and separates Telangana from Andhra Pradesh, I'd prefer it over the second source. —Gazoth (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright better provide the third source for all states article as well as for the main List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index article. It would be helpful if can update states article with the third source.--203.163.232.22 (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Please update the India HDI List with third source similar to the German HDI List or UK HDI List. Remove Old data.--115.96.157.209 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Veer-class corvette merge - reversal

You may be interested in commenting on this articles talk page Lyndaship (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Andhra Pradesh state formation day

youtu.be/XqM60U73eVQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsikrish1331 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

1 October 1953

2june 2014 Vamsikrish1331 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vamsikrish1331: I have no idea what you're trying to say. —Gazoth (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

about the population of meitei people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitei_people ( Manipuri People )We have more than 1.5 million population reside here in Indian State http://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/C-16_25062018_NEW.pdf studies first before you edit thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premdatta Laitonjam (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gazoth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeless Newsletter • Issue 3

Newsletter • December 2018

Welcome to the third issue of the Timeless newsletter, complete with a somewhat dubious explanation of where I've been all this time.

Somewhat dubious explanation of where I've been all this time:

I suffered a rather bad concussion in October, which knocked me pretty much completely out of commission through November, and I'm still recovering even now. One person = bus factor of one, even though it wasn't actually a bus but a very short flight of stairs.

Updates:

  • Random bugs have been fixed. More bugs have been found. For a full list of horrors, see the workboard.
  • Implementing themes (T131991: the dark/night mode and winter variants of the skin) has proven far more complicated than initially thought, lacking either the extension, or preferably, some core support for this functionality. Thus:
    • I have submitted a Request for Comment proposing to merge Extension:Theme into core - this will enable skins to specify style variants as distinct options for users to select in their preferences by letting the skin specify the styles separately for each, a much neater way of implementing this than some of the existing hacks.
    • Jack Phoenix has already submitted a patch to do this. We simply need the buy-in and consensus to merge it, and to resolve whatever issues may arise from this wider review.

Comments on the RfC (MediaWiki wiki RfC page, task) or bugs, or further reports, are always appreciated.

Until next time, hopefully with no further injuries,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Rafale_deal_controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 112.134.66.1 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Rafale_deal_controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Already warned you before,[2] this is second time you are getting the warning.

People have better things to do and edit than entertain your WP:IDHT forever. You failed to convince people to support your version, now get over it. Content is afterall reliably sourced, so there should be least concern. 112.134.65.132 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Protect the page

Pleae protect this page sir.Because Thirumangai alvar is a king of Mutharaiyar dynastry and Alvar.But Nittawinoda add the irrelevet sub title.Add the another Caste title so please protect the page and block the user Nittawinoda.thank you by--Jkalaiarasan86 (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jkalaiarasan86: I am not an administrator. If you have a dispute with another editor, please follow the instructions at WP:DR. —Gazoth (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Your blanket revert at Rafale deal controversy

Hi. You have removed the content concerning the background with the following edit summary: ""Background" section should only contain material published before the controversy started in November 2017. Do not mix newer sources in this section."

Such a thought is not only very arbitrary, but also ridiculous. In detailing the background, the use of "new" sources is inevitable, for you cannot expect a particular set of sources to have all the information just because they were published prior to the controversy. Most of the time, the new information emerges, even when it comes to the background of something, with time, as is the case here. You should also note that most of cited sources discussed the information in question in the context of the controversy (e.g., 1, 2), thus making it germane to the background.

If you have a specific concern, you would do well to pinpoint it, so that we can sort it out. In any case, your removal of content that is germane is just not on. I'd urge you to self-revert. Thanks. MBlaze Lightning 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: It is not arbitrary, the section was created only to contain information known at the time the allegations were made. If you add information that became known after the allegations were made, it would make the article non-neutral as the reader would assume that at the time the allegations were made all the information in the "Background" section was public information. I would have no objections to using newer sources, as long as you can demonstrate that the information in those sources was public before allegations were made. You should add newer information such as Trappier's statement that DRAL would only handle 10% of Dassault's offsets in the "Allegations" section or any other section following it. —Gazoth (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm fine with moving Trappier's statement to another section, as appropriate. But that still doesn't justify your outright blanket revert of my edits, which mostly concerned information which "was public before allegations were made". MBlaze Lightning 11:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@MBlaze Lightning: I made a blanket revert as it was non-trivial to separate out information from newer and older sources. I restored some of the information in your edits that was public before the allegations were made. I didn't restore the parts that I felt were unnecessarily detailed such as the details of the JV and other information that is tangential to the controversy such as jobs created by offsets. You can add them back, but do consider that there's a ton of material written on this and we need to write this article concisely. —Gazoth (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you explaining your actions to me, and I do see your point (although I disagree to a certain extent). Accordingly, I've restored just the important bits that were widely reported at that time. Thanks again and a happy new year! MBlaze Lightning 13:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Rafale deal controversy

I have remade the edits please approve — Preceding unsigned comment added by School Wiki Group Leader (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Told — Preceding unsigned comment added by School Wiki Group Leader (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies

Hey, uh.. sorry about that mess on India noticeboard regarding pib bot uploads. I really had no idea that it would come to this. I just had hoped that if someone has some time to spare, they would lend a hand; else, no worries. I am really very sorry. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: It's ok, don't worry about it. —Gazoth (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rafale documents section

Hello, This is Shreyas. This is regarding Rafale documents section being removed. That selection could be a list of documents leaked or put in public domain by government. Statement which was added was just like a introduction to that section. I was going to add initial list of documents - document for defense ministry protesting against PMO and Government waiving off anti-corruption clause. More documents are expected to be leaked by media outlets or put in public domain by government. Please let me know if that section should be created or not. Thank You. --Shreyas112358 —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shreyas112358: No, no such section is needed. It can all go into the "Controversy" section. —Gazoth (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Pulwama attack

Please take a look into my reply regarding the reverts to the article 2019 Pulwama attack, here - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I believe you have violated WP:3RR on 2019 Pulwama attack. Please revert your last edit.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm only at my second revert. —Gazoth (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:3RR says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You have reverted content I added 4 times in less than 24 hours. If you don't self-revert, I will report you.Bless sins (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if you count my edit at 18:00 as a revert, I'm still at three. Remember that consecutive edits count as a single revert. —Gazoth (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Four reverts, two of which are consecutive. You are still edit warring, and making edits without discussing first on the article. Whereas I have made quite an effort at initiating discussion.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Bless sins, you made a talk page comment and then immediately reverted my edit. While the discussion was going on, you loaded the section with undue material, and stated opinions as facts. Hardly a sign of good-faith discussion. —Gazoth (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't make any edits related to the discussion while the discussion is going on. But that doesn't prevent me from making edits or improving the article in other ways. Yet, your last 4 edits to the article have all been to revert my edits.Bless sins (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The edits were in the same section, all about a single viewpoint, while a matter involving the same viewpoint was under discussion. —Gazoth (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indian Air Force satellites

Should the number of Military Satellites operated by IAF be added on the wiki info box of IAF as the same is mentioned in wiki info box of USAF Wiki page? Mayank Prasoon (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mayank Prasoon, IAF does not have dedicated military satellites. GSAT-7A is shared with the army. It'd be better to mention GSAT-7A in the context of IACCS in "Network-centric warfare" section instead of adding it to the infobox. —Gazoth (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay but in case if more Dedicated Satellites are launched for IAF(that surely would be) in the near future then they could be added(in numbers) in wiki infobox of IAF Wiki page like USAF wiki page has? Mayank Prasoon (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Mayank Prasoon, if they are operated by the air force and not merely dedicated for it, sure. —Gazoth (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

HAL Tejas

Why did you revert my change where I added the "native name" for the HAL Tejas? Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

పగలబడి నవ్వుట, I have linked the relevant policy in my edit summary, MOS:IS. —Gazoth (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Western Naval Command

Not very clever to revert the edit. It was not contradicting any information, and the early history of the Western Command is sketchy. The Vice Admiral was indeed the FOC-in-C of the Western Naval Command, just not clear exactly when. I am not exactly sure what the revert achieved. I intend to add more information about all 3 services and their operating arms, hope you won't play spoilsport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranban282 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ranban282, if you are not sure about about the accuracy of the information that you're adding, why are you adding it? As long as you violate WP:V, one of our core content policies, I'll continue to revert you. —Gazoth (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It was *not* violating WP:V. I also see that you're doing the same thing on other articles. Looks like we'll get into an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranban282 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ranban282, you need to add a reliable source to satisfy WP:V. You didn't do so the first time, thereby violating WP:V. You added reliable sources the second time around, so it didn't violate WP:V. —Gazoth (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Northam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rocket Lab

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rocket Lab. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to the rafale deal

Hello Gazoth, can you please advise why you deleted my edits on the rafale deal? If you found the text disagreeable, you could have simply edited it to what you consider more objective. All the edits were with high level citations from Le Monde and The Hindu. And the RTI reply from the Indian government. (Personal attack removed) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Notthebestusername, I'll respond to you when you demonstrate the ability to discuss the subject matter objectively, without personal attacks. —Gazoth (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Gazoth - Frankly, let us stop this discussion now as I am not interested in silly discussions. I don't live in India, you do. You will bear the results of whatever you are doing. I wont be editing this page as there are 1.3 billion of my co-countrymen and women who should be more interested in the truth than me, an India living and working abroad. Take care :) Notthebestusername (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazoth/Archive_1&oldid=1143018080"