This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ratnahastin. 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.
This award is given in recognition to Ratnahastin for collecting more than 500 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award
This award is given in recognition to Ratnahastin for collecting at least 50 points during each week of the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there when you are free can you please have a look at this page. I have added updates to the page. Please let me know if it’s acceptable Christoffheaney (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 24
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 24th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 24 December 2021. Uh-huh, we're finally covering the good ones among the rest! Aren't you excited? Remember to include a link in double brackets to the script's .js page when you install the script, so that we can see who uses the script in WhatLinksHere! The ScriptInstaller gadget automatically does this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Making user scripts load faster by SD0001 is this month's featured script, which caches userscripts every day to eliminate the overhead caused by force-downloading the newest version of scripts every time you open a Wikipedia page. Despite being released in April 2021, our best script scouters have failed to locate it due to its omission from the US of L. For security reasons, the script only supports loading JavaScript pages.
Newly maintained scripts
After earthly attempts at improving the original have failed...
Ahecht has created a fork of SiBr4/TemplateSearch, which adds the "TP:" shortcut for "Template:" in the search box, and updated it to be compatible with Vector 2022.
AquilaFasciata/goToTopFast is a much faster fork of the classic goToTop script that also adds compatibility for Minerva and Vector 2022.
Without caching. Each script takes 400–500ms. A particularly large script takes 1.11 s! Internet download speed is 50 Mbps.With caching enabled. Each script takes just 1-2 ms to load.
Improve a script
Unfortunately, this section has remained nearly identical. Help us out here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm stops you from accidentally submitting anything due to pressing enter while in the smaller box, and works on almost anything... except the InputBox element itself, used in subscription lists and the Signpost Crossword! Oh, the humanity!
Doǵu/Adiutor(pictured) provides a nice, integrated interface to do some twinkley tasks such as copyvio detection, CSD tagging, and viewing the most recent diff.
Eejit43 has quite the aesthetically pleasing scripts, all made in TypeScript.
/afcrc-helper is a replacement for the unmaintained Enterprisey/AFCRHS and processes Redirects for Creation and Categories for Creation requests.
/ajax-undo stops the "undo" button from taking you to another page while providing a text box to provide a reason for the revert.
/redirect-helper(pictured) adds a much better interface for editing and redirects, including categorization, for which valid categories are dictated by /redirect-helper.json.
/rmtr-helper helps process technical requested moves without being able to actually move them.
Guycn2/UserInfoPopup(pictured) adds a flyout after the watchlist star on userspace pages that displays the common information you might use about a user.
Jeeputer/editCounter, under userspace, adds a portlet link to count your edits by namespace, put them in a table, and put that table in a hardcoded subpage, all in the background.
Hilst/Scripts/sectionLinks converts all section links to use the § sign, which are known to be preferred over the ugly # by 99% of the devils I've met.
PrimeHunter/Category source.js adds portlet links to tell you where a category for an article comes from and supports those from template transclusions.
Sophivorus's MiniEdit adds some nice, li'l buttons next to paragraphs to edit their wikitext with a minimal interface.
Edit-listings
Dragoniez/ToollinkTweaks adds more and customizable links next to users in page history, logs, watchlist, recent changes, etc.
Firefly/more-block-info optimizes the display of rangeblocks in contribution pages. Doesn't work outside the English locale of any wiki, unfortunately.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader makes paging links (e.g. older 50, 500, newest) load without refreshing and makes you realize how slow your internet actually is.
Appearance-ricing
Ahecht/RedirectID adds the redirect target to all redirects. For all the WP:NAVPOPS haters. (Do these exist?)
Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal: Remember the "strike blocked usernames" gadget? Now you can use a red, dotted line to highlight rangeblocks and global locks!
Jonesey/common(pictured) has some styles to overhaul your Vector 2022 experience. It reduces padding everywhere, and makes the top bar animation faster.
Aaron Liu/V22 is a fork that narrows the sidebars instead of upheaving them, reverts the January 2024 dropdown changes, and restores the old page-link color for links that don't go outside the current wiki.
Nardog: SmartDiff is a spiritual successor to Enterprisey/fancy-diffs. It makes the page title part of links in diffs clickable, along with template and parser function calls. Unnamed parameters can be configured per template to also be linked. All links are styled based on the normal CSS classes of rendered links.
For the paranoid: Rublov/anonymize replaces your username at the top of the screen with the generic "User page" text. Remember, it is your duty to persuade everyone that editing is an honor.
/AjaxBlock provides a dialog box for easy input of reasons while blocking users.
/Selective Rollback(pictured) provides a dialog box to customize rollback edit summaries and does them without reloading the page. Seriously, why doesn't MediaWiki already do this?
/flickrsearch adds a portlet link to search for uploadable flickr images about the subject.
/randomincategory adds a portlet link when on Category pages to go to a random page in the current category.
Vghfr/EasyTemplates adds a portlet link to automatically insert some of the most common inline {{fix}} templates.
Yes, we're just doing 'em as we go now. Thanks for reading through this looong issue, if you did! I'm sure this'll send a record for the longest issue ev-ah. You may need to wait even longer for the last issue, as our reserve of old-y and goodie scripts have ran out... We encourage you to try and do some of the requests or improvement tasks. See you in Summer, hopefully!
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Hi, you left a warning to @loan:Church talk page concerning edit war on the the Anabaptist theology page. A couple of different IP addresses have been there making reversions and now a once-banned user with only a couple of edits; I suspect sockpuppetry. The user has engaged in conversation on the talk page but is quite pushy. If you could take a couple of minutes to revisit the situation I would appreciate it. Thanks Mikeatnip (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The page has been protected by @Daniel Case [1], and status quo has been restored [2], I don't there is anything left for me to do here, thanks. Ratnahastin (talk)05:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles
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.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
On 3 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anomalites, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an extinct French scarab beetle was discovered in a Prague factory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anomalites. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anomalites), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your recent editing history at List of largest funerals shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nobody is trying to impose their version except for your insistence on reverting changes until you decide. Two users (myself included) contributed to discussion on the talk page before you made your latest edit warring reversion, and yet you have not responded. You have had several days to contribute, and that is why you are now being warned: constantly reverting to your preferred version by saying that changes need discussing, while not actually contributing to discussion, is disruptive. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
@Ratnahastin I want to nominate the aricle 1 for deletion as there was no seige at all as you can see in the discusion 2. At best It was a treaty as I do not know that how to nominate a article for deletion. Can you do it on my behalf? Rawn3012 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Ratnahastin, I found that you have moved the page to draftspace mentioning it as 'needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest'.
I must mention here that the subject is a winner of Kerala State Film Award for Best Child Artist and that one eligibility itself makes her notable to add her in main space. The Primary reference has been provided in that page where the same reference has been used in many pages where Kerala State Film Award has been mentioned. The page has been written from a neutral point of view and not with any COI. Please check the details are move the page back to main space.Omkaaram (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Draftifications
Hi Ratnahastin. According to your draftify log, you have draftified forty forty-three (you did three more while I was writing this message) articles and counting today. You moved one per minute between 11.14 and 11.21 UTC. Can you please explain to me how you are managing to the due diligence required to decide that an article doesn't belong in mainspace in a matter of minutes? Because I'm spot checking them now and seeing barely any that actually meet WP:DRAFTIFY... – Joe (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have been carefully assessing the articles to check whether they are notable or they are poorly written or both. On this one, I felt that the language was promotional that's why I moved it to draft. Ratnahastin (talk)13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In 60 seconds? Really? What specifically is promotional in Centre of Expertise on Euthanasia? And if that was the reason, why did you tell the creator that you draftified it because it needs more sources to establish notability?[4] I think you need to slow down and remind yourself of the guidance in WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Notability seemed to be a concern as well because I cannot find more than very few sources for this subject on Google. You can try searching for "Centre of Expertise on Euthanasia" and let me know if you have found multiple reliable sources that establish GNG. Yes I'll reduce my speed over article reviews. Ratnahastin (talk)13:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I just saw this thread and I thought I'd add another opinion to it, since I saw a couple of articles I've been planning to re-review (and I'll drop a full re-review on the page for that once I get around to it). Draft:Afrigo seems like a good draftify to me, I approve, but I'm not so sure about Draft:Caliber change. There are four sources there, and another book in further reading, so I would normally expect an explicit comment on why they don't meet the required standard. WP:OFFLINE and WP:GENREFs are perfectly acceptable for new articles, if that was the only issue then the most common action would be to tag with {{more footnotes}} and either leave it or mark as reviewed. Were there any further issues?
Also, I'm probably going to nom etf.com, which you also reviewed, for AFD (again, when I get around to it) so a heads-up for that one as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I used reliable sources (New Yorker, Deadline Hollywood, etc.) on said article, yet you think it needs more sources. Care to explain? Espngeek (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Ratnahastin, I hope you're doing well. I want to add more suspected users in your started SPI on Muhammad Umar Ali as I think these users are closely connected to each other and could be sock of each other. Can you check if these users (DeepstoneV, Hassan Gangu and Aryaputram7) are possibly related to Muhammad Umar Ali and Kemilliogolgi? I got some evidence so you can just use them easily for adding these users in the suspected list. So please tell me if I should show them here or I can add it myself in the SPI (If I'm allowed). Based Kashmiri (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin Can you please check if I have made any errors, as your starting suspected list should be at the top? I am unsure of the reason, but I am unable to fix it (perhaps because I am not editing on the web). After reviewing the edit history of the suspected socks, I came to the conclusion that the sock master should be either DeepstoneV or Kemilliogolgi rather than Muhammad Umar Ali. Please give your opinion. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for keeping an eye open for pages created by blocked socks, but please remember that a page can only be deleted under WP:G5 if the master was already blocked when the page was created (among other requirements). So this, for example, is not eligible – I've declined your nomination there. I know nothing about sport, but assume he's notable as a member of a national team? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
In the source provided has 'Some South Indians and Tamils don’t feel ‘Desi’ includes them' topic.
please dont remove casually Afv12e (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Putting undue weight on this in the lead is inappropriate, given that the existing sources include all of India as falling into the Desi categorization. Per WP:BRD, your edits were reverted because you have no consensus. Ratnahastin (talk)11:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This is from the source :
Some South Indians and Tamils don’t feel ‘Desi’ includes them
As transnational classifications expanded on the academic level, “Desi” emerged as a grassroots-based alternative in the ’90s partly to combat the nationalist ideals of a growing Bharatiya Janata Party in India, Maira said.
“‘South Asian American’ is fine in academia, but at a community level, it’s a bit unwieldy,” Maira said. “‘Desi’ actually emanated from progressive South Asian spaces.”
But even though she saw its positive intentions early on, Maira recognizes that the use of “Desi” is fraught with disagreement today, particularly among South Indians and non-Indians who are pushing back against a North Indian, Hindi-dominated landscape.
=====
Even in the article it says the word 'desi' itself is a Hindustani(Hindi-Urudu) word.
Usage of 'desi' or 'desi culture' or the synonymous 'Bollywood culture' is alien to south India.
Though as a reference in Wikipedia we never take his, but for a discussion, you can find discussion posts here that 'South Indians' never consider to be 'Desis':
I have already told that , these reddit and Quora are not used in Wikipedia, but for a sake of discussion you can have read. There are lot of disagreements.
The source provided is of NBC News , Which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia.
I find it suspicious this reviewer would reject the page. And then immediately after the person covered by the page be contacted on social media by a Ritesh Kumar of Gloster media claiming to be specialist in wikipedia moderation who can help. Firstly how would they know the page submission was rejected and secondly any help to remedy the issue should have been made through wikipedia not a 3rd party.
@Dafea23: "Ritesh Kumar" of "Gloster media" is not connected to Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia does not send you help via third parties.
There are many people who claim to get your draft accepted due to their familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and/or individual Wikipedia administrators. These are all scams.
They (and everyone else in the whole world) can see when drafts submitted to Articles for Creation are rejected, because everything on Wikipedia is publicly logged. That is how they were able to contact you when your draft got rejected. There isn't anything Wikipedia can do to control how random scammers on the internet choose to conduct their scams.
Are BBCsport and Sky Sports news not deemed reliable sources anymore? We aren't talking politics. Everything stated is based on fact and backed up by published by respected sports media. There is nothing of opinion. The sources used are the same as other excepted sources for other players on wikipedia. Agreed the first draft didn't have enough secondary sources but the second resubmitted one did. Dafea23 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Review not showing
Hello, recently you reviewed my article Hvalen incident, but your review/grade is not showing up on the articles talk page. If you have the will and time to fix it, would you do that for me?
Hey, I hope you are well. A user just posted on my talk page asking me to review this article. Upon checking, I found that you and another user had declined it.
In my review, I found that the subject fails WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources. However, the subject has directed a notable film named “Who I Am Not” which has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Therefore, I think the subject passes WP:DIRECTOR’s no:3. Please share your input. I am marking the article under review. GrabUp - Talk04:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
On a personal thought, it was a clarification note but I was also told by another editor to inform you nevertheless for courtesy reasons and possible errors they found. Borgenland (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Spectrallights, thanks for addressing the concerns that were raised about your draft article , I've reviewed it and moved it to the mainspace because I found it sufficiently sourced. Thanks. Ratnahastin(talk)05:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Draft:List of Wars between Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate
No, I'm still seeing sources from 19th and early 20th centuries. You should replace them with modern scholarly sources. Ratnahastin(talk)06:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it's good for now, another reviewer may review it in the future til then you can try improving it by citing more reliable sources. Thanks. Ratnahastin(talk)08:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Sri Lanka, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi, I saw you had two issues with a wikipedia draft I wrote today.
1.) Non-reliable sources
I added many more sources, doubling the amount of sources. Sources now include Taipei Times, FEI (International Fencing Federation), and official records from the 2018 YOG Summer Olympic Games.
2.) Not notable
Chen Yi-Tung has qualified for the 2024 Paris Olympics which most people would consider highly notable. He has also been officially congratulated by Taiwanese embassies which I have also included in the article.
Is it possible you could re-review this submission? Thank you!
You have recently made edits related to Sri Lanka. This is a standard message to inform you that Sri Lanka is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not how Deletion Review normally works, and please don't send messages like this to good-faith contributors "warning" them about not assuming good faith at that venue. I have reverted your template addition to Robert's talk page. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel: You can read WP:TTR. You are not allowed to remove people's comment from talk pages outside your own unless those messages are outright offensive but that was not a case here. I would further note that you actually misused WP:ROLLBACK (see WP:ROLLBACKUSE) by reverting my message. Ratnahastin(talk)05:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If you have a concern with Robert's post, have the decency to write him a personalised message expressing your concerns. He is a DRV regular who is very well respected and has been on the project for nearly two decades. A drive-by templating of him with an accusation of not assuming good faith is not on. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
You have already said it and I have addressed why I used a template. However, this reply of yours does not address the concerns I have raised about your own actions. Ratnahastin(talk)06:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I will rollback my rollback and remove the message manually. I stand by my removal of the templating of a regular in this situation, especially considering this overlaps the fringes of a contentious topic. I repeat my urging for you to write a custom message if you still wish to have a conversation with Robert about any issues with his post at DRV (which I do not see any assumptions of bad faith within). If you have an ongoing issue with my removal of your templating of a regular in this situation, please feel free to escalate it to the administrators' noticeboard or any other venue you see fit. Daniel (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I will write a manual message once you have undid your removal and it will be quick.
As for taking you to WP:AN or elsewhere, I won't do that because you have been collaborative even in this discussion so far. Ratnahastin(talk)06:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
SPI
Please do not ping individual checkusers, clerks or admins to SPI cases, unless there is an urgent and specific reason for doing so. The backlog is very long, and we are volunteers just the same as you are - pinging us to deal with a case you have filed purely based on the amount of time since you filed it is not appropriate. If there is a particular urgency to the case that means that it really must be looked at immediately a ping may in some cases be appropriate, but you would really need to set out what the need for immediate action is. GirthSummit (blether)08:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Newly maintained scripts
.png)
.png)
Improve a script
Requested scripts
New scripts
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Enforcement Directorate. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. For adding fake data about conviction rate: [3]. The Doom Patrol (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Katchatheevu, you may be blocked from editing. For repeatedly vandalizing sourced content and edit warring without explaining the issue in talk page. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You have recently made edits related to Sri Lanka. This is a standard message to inform you that Sri Lanka is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)