User talk:Holy Contributor 92

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rohit Sharma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCG. 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) 06:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Holy Contributor 92! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! Firestar464 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1979–80, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Holi

Hi - when I looked at your edit at Holi, I saw you had added the 'India Today' source to the article's lead, supporting the sentence It originated and is predominantly celebrated in Nepal & India but has also spread to other regions of Asia and parts of the Western world through the diaspora from the Indian subcontinent. The India Today article did not seem to discuss anything about the movements of people or religious holidays, and in general terms a magazine like that wouldn't be a great source for sociological assertions like that, we would want a more scholarly source. Between my reviewing that diff and reverting it, I see that you moved it to the infobox to support an assertion of the date of Holi in 2022 - I have no problem with that, it's reliable enough to support a date.

I also noticed that you added the names of the people accused in the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape to the infobox of the article. You used the 'convicted' field in the infobox, but as far as I can gather from the sources there, none of these individuals were actually convicted, they were shot dead before any convictions were made. Please be careful to ensure that any material you add to an article is supported by the sources, and if you are just adding a citation, be careful to ensure that it is supporting the assertion that immediately precedes it. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 06:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: In first case, Indeed I added India today source for the date in 2022 & in 2019 Hyderabad gang rape well there shouldn't be a problem in adding the name, Although I agree with your convict bit too. Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Contributor 92, the diff that I reviewed was this one - you can see that you have added the citation to the end of the sentence I quoted above. You moved the citation while I was reviewing the diff - I reverted using Twinkle, which also automatically reverted your later edit where you moved the citation to support the date. Had I seen your later edit, moving the citation to support the date, I wouldn't have reverted.

With regards to the rape article, adding the names in a 'convicted' field is flat-out wrong - it's just not true, they weren't convicted. As to whether or not the article should name the suspects at all, that would require some careful consideration. BLPCRIME and BLPNAME would need to be considered - I recognise that the suspects are no longer living people, but the BLP also applies to the recently deceased. These people were accused, but not convicted, and since they are not public figures it is not clear that they should be named in the article. I do not say that they must not be, just that due consideration must be given. Whatever happens, the article absolutely must not imply that they were convicted of anything, when they were not. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravish Kumar - Clarification Needed

Thanks for updating the Ravish Kumar. I see that you've used two sources to deduce his DoB. While I can access the The Hindu source, which mentions his age as 44, but not the Business Standard source. Does the latter one mention his birth day and month → 5 December? This one in hindi explicitly mentions the day and month though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes Indeed I checked multiple reliable sources which mentioned his age as 44 when he was awarded in August 2019, He himself wrote his DOB as December 1974 in his profile of NDTV if we have source for exact date and year please cite that. Cheers Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The source of Bussiness Standard Times mentioned him 42 in a December 2016 article, So both source mentioned his age but not exact month i copied month and date from other sites and Ravish own profile to deduce his exact age.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we deduce that way in many articles. I was unable to find his profile that mentions his birthday '5 December'. A reliable soured that mentions '5 December' will be necessary for this. An WP:SPS social media verified link will also do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got this which is dated 5 Dec 2020 and talks about his Birthday. I believe will work sicne it is part of Indian Express. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree Indian Express is resposible Media House, anyway i have one more question since you seems to have interset in TV Series yesterday i add about false and fictional stories in 2013 Mahbharat Series at Star plus. Can we start a new section with all inaccuracies although it will require a documentary, Since it mostly consists of false tales and over glorification of Charcaters like Karna, ruining his friendship with Duryodhan and many blunders further omitting key episodes like Gandharvas one etc. But it will be hard to found sources, Can we publish originally the errors in series with reference to Mahbharat Scholars ??? Please answer soon... Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly, there is already a Mahabharat_(2013_TV_series)#Critics section which exactly uses the Firspost source you added yesterday to support this sentence → However, received negative criticism from Deepanjana Pal of Firstpost for CGI effects, acting, dialogues, cinematography and background. They also stated the storytelling as disappointing. ALso you need to maintain WP:BALANCE in the article. You can create a new section similar to 300 (film)#Historical inaccuracies, but it would more sources from different media outlets. We possibly can not our own commentaries on errors based on works on Mahabharat Scholars, that would be original research. We would need sources that explicitly mention the inaccuracies between the original epic and Mahabharat (2013 TV series) series. If somebody released books on inaccuracies of that particular serial, that can be added. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Please don't edit-war over images in infoboxes. Especially on higher profile articles, it's not helpful towards improving the article or a collaborative editing environment. Please use the article talk page early (and often!) to talk through the options and work towards a consensus. I've tried to get all three article articles back to original images prior to the edit-war, and on one even started the discussion. Please do the same on the other articles. Please read the WP:EDITWAR page - it's more than just the bright-line three revert limit, reverting repeatedly over a period of days is considered edit-warring, you need to follow WP:BRD and especially that last part, Discussion, on the article talk pages. Ravensfire (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: The one at Alia Bhatt started with the image which I reverted back where you revert me again, The Image was there on article from nearly a month same was case with Amitab Bachchan although i agree that in case of Deepika Padukone it need a consensus. Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the one from Guntaz to the revision which is established from four weeks and heck no one really pointed out that before you reverted it and made it a mess. The Image which I reverted it to now is the one which is there from weeks thats why i reverted Guntaz edit. Please don't do that and there won't be any problem in that article atleast.

Amitabh and Deepika one need a consensus though so i moved to talk page there.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on Alia Bhatt. The image you put back was the one you added on March 26th. Just over two weeks ago. Not even CLOSE to a month. The image that's been in the infobox for most of the past year (hint, this is the revision from just about a year ago) is the one that I put into the lead. Please self-revert back to the stable image from before this image-war ever started. Ravensfire (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I did not "make it a mess". I restored the stable image because of an obvious edit-war that was happening. I don't appreciate the personal attack there. That's NOT helpful. You need to revert less and discuss more - Wikipedia works on a consensus model, which requires discussion, not a revert revert revert which is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: I couldn't see any obvious issue with the current image, if any editor in future reverts it to an improvement, I will be more than happy to discuss on talk page. So , Please don't revert that now on that page atleast untill someone else revert other than you i won't have an issue in discussing that on talk page like i did at Bachchan and will do at Deepika Padukone.

But now FFS, Don't revert it again and make it another mess.

Anyway Sorry for that personal attack dear. Cheers Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Contributor 92, I'm again going to put back the stable image that's been around for a while. Yes, your preference has been there for a few weeks. That's not consensus, that's obvious when it does get reverted. FFS, don't revert it back and make the edit-war even worse. Ravensfire (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I started the Bhatt discussion as it's obvious you weren't going to do so. Present the options there and work towards consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: I didn't start at that page because I don't though it was neccessary as there wasn't a edit war or If It was we could have fix this out. Ok, I am going to that talk page.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Opindia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Holy Contributor 92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for being a sockpuppet of a user whom i never heard about. Can a genuine and able administraitor went throught this again ??? Apart from article overlap there were no similarities between the accounts. I have different edit summaries, wording style, capitalization and many other. The CU results too didn't found anything. Please went through this again and unblock me as the block is not neccesary.Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The SPI is compelling to me and I don't find this request convincing, so I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Holy Contributor 92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an unblock request to complain against two unrelated blocks. Firstly I was tagged with Aristocratic 536 then this tag is removed and new tag is with another blocked user named as Showbiz 826. I went through their edit history and their is a day-light difference between the edits,wording and many other things even the topic overlap is way different. I request an admin to went through this again Who arrogantly denied. I request to re run a check of mine account with this Showbiz guy and just see edit summaries,editing style and other things. Please, do this and unblock me as block is not neccessary at all. There is no difference whatsoever, how you tagged me with these 2 blocked accounts especially the one which is tagged on my user page .??? Please take time and review it.

Decline reason:

Per below, and your inadequate command of English suggesting you might be better off editing in your native language. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: HC92 was never tagged as Aristocratic ([1]), though I did retag a bunch of other accounts because of a pending case merge (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aristocratic 536 into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826). --Blablubbs|talk 08:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 45520

UTRS appeal #45520 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]