User talk:JaggaDaaku

January 2022

Hi JaggaDaaku! I just wanted to let you know below points.

1) Miscellaneous is still getting counted in MoHFW report. Just check the recent reports from MoHFW. Jan 2 MoHFW report and Jan 6 MoHFW report

2) Not sure from where you are getting the population statistics. I am taking it from MoHFW Population projections for 2021, It looks like Govt is also following this same stat on their press releases. I was the one entirely inserted the projected population for each state and overall for the first time. Checkout the population projection here page 44(50). Population projection

3) I agree that CoWIN is government run website, but the sentence their mentioned about the percentage of population received first and second dose. CoWIN doesn't show any population vs vaccination statistics. CoWIn displays only number of vaccinations done until now. But that site shows the statistics of percentage pop received first and both doses in detail. That site also uses the same data from CoWIN since the vaccination count is exactly same w.r.t CoWIN. It also has more reports compiled from goverment press release etc. Previously, for that sentence, there were no citation, I added the citation in the first place.

Thank You

You should have added this in a new discussion. No need to replace it with welcome page as you just did JaggaDaaku (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the MoHFW report is a projection according to the 2011 census if you read properly. Not a projection on current basis. Please get your facts right. JaggaDaaku (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JaggaDaaku What you mean by 'Current basis'?? All projections are based on 2011 census. The last real census data collection happened only in 2011. It was supposed to happen on 2021/2022 (every 10 years) but due to corona its delayed 2021 Census of India. If "current basis" is already known, why you need a projection in the first place??! Please put the source you are using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev.paulson (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you are right on miscellaneous point but not on population stats. And the website you added is an independent website which is not under the category of reliable sources. Let cowin be there. People can compare the stats with population projection. |Dev.paulson JaggaDaaku (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Rockcodder. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rajya Sabha without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rockcodder (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello JaggaDaaku! Your additions to Vyasa have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dynamo Gaming (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This still feels like it is promotional, and the verbiage closely paraphrased by other articles, especially the RepublicWorld one. Statements are made about his personal life that are unsourced. Need more external news sources that focus on Dynamo himself, not ones where he's among a list of 10 YouTubers and has a small paragraph.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dynamo Gaming and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dynamo Gaming, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JaggaDaaku! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked?

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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? Who is Editing God Guru? How am I his sock? Just because I also created Dynamo Gaming's Draft? Why all my edits are reverted? I merged pages after discussions they are all reverted. I haven't done any wrong with my A/c. Why this injustice? More than me @Bbb23: has vandalised Wikipedia. The articles that I merged after discussions are back. This is really disgusting. No discussion at all just a block in between editing? Please answer to my questions. JaggaDaaku (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not adequately address the sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2022 (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.

Please remerge the articles i merged atleast. Although they are already merged please revert the edits. That you made by reverting mine. Atleast check thise edits once. If you think that I abused or vandalised any article then don't. But please check all the articles manually once atleast. @Bbb23: JaggaDaaku (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your request to another editor to revert my edits. If you do that again, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Do you have some personal grudges with me? Didn't you vandalise those good edits that I made? You didn't answered to my question I asked earlier. But now you are here removing my request. Why are you being so unfair? Bbb23 Is there any wrong if I am asking someone to correct your mistake? If you think you are so good then please I would request you to visit all those articles and see who's wrong. Shall I raise a consensus on this matter anout who's right and who's wrong? If you are so confident that you are right and I am wrong then prove it. The worst you can do is revoke my TPA because you already have blocked me unnecessarily. But that will for sure leave you red-faced. Debate me. Prove me wrong. Or accept that you have made a mistake by blocking me. And if you don't have the guts to do this atleast for the sake of Wikipedia revert your vandalism on all those articles. JaggaDaaku (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot how can i address sockpuppetry when i don't know anything about the editing God Guru. How shall I prove my point? JaggaDaaku (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard, as every sock puppet denies doing it, since that is the whole point. Either you are the unluckiest person on this planet or there is an explanation for this that you have not yet provided. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot You know what I think you are right that I am the unluckiest person currently on this planet. And the worst part is I am being asked to explain about something that I am totally unaware of. I don't know what and how I need to explain. Please tell me what is the thing that I need to explain. So that I can raise another unblock request. Before this Bbb23 or some other admin revokes my TPA. PLEASE HELP ME OUT JaggaDaaku (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw my abuse log. There is only one abuse mentioned. That too was a mistake I admit. I was new here and I didn't knew about the policies of Wikipedia nicely. My action was reverted. I accepted my mistake and moved on. I never engaged in edit war or debate with the one who corrected my mistake. Just one single abuse and that too I was unintentional and I am blocked indefinitely. No warnings served. Direct block that about a mistake made 1.5 months back during my intital days. But what about me being accused of sockpuppetry? How should I explain myself? Please Help Me JaggaDaaku (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting admin abuse

I was blocked and accused of sockpuppetry.

I was blocked and accused of sockpuppetry. on [[User:JaggaDaaku me|JaggaDaaku me]] ([[User talk:JaggaDaaku me|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/JaggaDaaku me|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/JaggaDaaku me|logs]] · block log) performed by [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Bbb23|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Bbb23|logs]]) ([[User talk:Bbb23#I am blocked by this admin. Don't know why. Kindly please refer to my unblock request where I have put my POV (which is the real one]])

{{{reason}}}. |reason = I am not a sock of that Editing God Guru. }} JaggaDaaku (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I am falsely accused of sockpuppetry. I don't know how the hell I am a sockpuppet of Edit god guru. For my point of view, Kindly (Please) refer to my previous unblock request at my talk page section. If I need to re-explain please tell me. I will and also tell me what do I need to address that is left from my part.

Decline reason:

After independently reviewing the situation, I don't doubt Bbb's call for a second. Considering the tiresome history of drawn-out unblock requests that you have under your previous accounts, I will be revoking talk-page access. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2022 (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.

JaggaDaaku (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--Blablubbs (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]