User talk:ShresthaShome.Ullas

Begins My First Day at Wikipedia

Wish me good luck. ShresthaShome.Ullas @talk 16:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, ShresthaShome.Ullas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Bishonen | tålk 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nuclear tsunami (May 4)

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

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. 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:

The opening sentence breaks NPOV guidelines and the rest of the article fails to explain clearly what a nuclear tsunami is.

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:Nuclear tsunami 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:Nuclear tsunami, 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.

Deb (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShresthaShome.Ullas! 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! Deb (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Jijisipu (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify which article you're talking about? I am new here. So, my actions can seem random. But the objectives are neutral. Some articles are in dire need of updates. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Osmanabad district. I can see you have cut past move the article to Dharashiv district which is not allowed, plus the article's history reveals that Osmanabad district is the WP:CommonName of that article. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with wikipedia's policy before making mass changes. If you need any assistance please ask on WP: Teahouse. Thank you. Jijisipu (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it means, moving a page directly is not possible unless someone changes the common name?
ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and paste move are not allowed. Jijisipu (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to create a page move request which I have created now Anubhavklal (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi! Our speedy deletion process can only be requested or applied in narrow range of cases; the specific allowable criteria are here. Please don't waste your time and that of others by requesting any speedy deletion for any reason not listed there – no admin is going to accept such a request. If you really think that Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion should be deleted you can start a deletion discussion; you'll need to produce some strong policy-based reasons for that to have any chance of success. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go ahead with criteria. The article itself was made without any criteria. It was made back in 2009 when a lot of bad articles used to float around created by amateur members. A lot of such bad articles have been deleted by admins since then. Why is this one still here? It is the duty of admins to keep Wikipedia safe, healthy and neat. It is beyond any reason why that kind of article is still on Wikipedia. Why don't you take measures yourself to delete it? Wikipedia should be free and fare for every community. Targeting a certain community is not good. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Dharashiv Tahsil‎. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop censoring Indian art?

I feel you need to be neutral towards all religions, and accept historical facts. Hinduism does not have blasphemy. Please don't imitate some other religions. Don't keep deleting Wikipedia pages just because you, as a user, has a very small range of tolerance. Respect Indian art and literature. Also the original literature is from Jayadev's Gita Govind, a masterful Sanskrit author. Even Kalidas wrote similar erotic scenes between Shiva and Parvati. So don't go on doing censorship attempts on Indian art and literature. And please stop blackmailing and threatening companies and historians with "boycotts", etc. It's rude, bigoted and improper. Nathularog (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is wrong, it doesn't mean people will accept it. I'm talking about the painting, not about some other literature. If those people are wrong, no matter what position they held in past, we should discard them and move on. Supporting them because of arrogance is wrong. And who are you to say that Hinduism does not have blasphemy? Forget Devaninda, even killing a cow was punishable by death in Maratha empire. But that is not the point. It is about wikipedia. What wikipedia stands for? Is wikipedia waiting for getting slapped with IPC section 295A which is basically Indian blasphemy law?

Also, your rhetoric about censorship nonsense is hypocrisy considering wikipedia has WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT argument for specifically cases like above. You should read more rules on WP before joining. And most importantly, If you are so tolerant, stop forcing others to be like you. You are not even Hindu. It seems you're Muslim or Atheist. So, stop talking like you get to decide what we want. We are not biased, we want wikipedia to be neutral. Nathularog (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what communal people like or not, it's about what is truth. It's about showing historical facts, as it is. It's not about censorship. Hinduism does not have blasphemy, and it's as a historical fact. Wikipedia edits should reflect it.

How can anyone discard age old Sanskrit devotional literature? To discard Kalidas, Jaydev or Andal? What religious authority does one have to do it?

People should tolerance for variety of ideas, at least about religion. That's what Hinduism has promoted- assimilation of different ideas. One should not impose their authoritarian doctrines on public forums.

IPC does not apply to publishing of real historical facts, art and literature. In fact these very laws are colonial era laws.

And one should not insult others by assuming their religion, and stereotyping them according to their assumed idea about a community.

Nathularog (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of logic is this? How do you connect ancient literature with modern paintings? Even Kamasutra never had any erotic paintings unlike modern books claiming to be Kamasutra are sold with 100s of pornographic images, let alone Dharmic literatures. You are connecting vulgar paintings with Kalidasa literature. You need to leave Wikipedia ASAP and head back to school.

Erotic paintings were always discouraged. Again, read about Devaninda topic on internet. There used to be capital punishment for Devaninda according to Shastras. Internet is free. It does not need much practice to find an useful article. Again, if I were you, blasphemy would've been my least concern. No, self respecting, backboned man will tolerate something like this towards his own culture (assuming you are one) under no condition not even so called "Hurr durr I am tolerant, I am different, I am better than nazis" argument. Saying that we should tolerate everything because it will make us better than other intolerant people is like eating dirt because nazis eat better food and saying "look, I'm better than nazis because I eat dirt and they do not." How will you live without water or Oxygen then when so called intolerant people also live using those? What will you do if someone take arms to kill your whole family? Will you hide cowardly and calm yourself saying "I'm better than them" while they butcher your kin? Also there is Paradox of tolerance argument. The painting that you are defending was made under british patronage using brown sepoys like you (sorry to speak like this but nobody can keep calm while they see their culture under genocide by foreign forces like wikipedia while you work under them like a wikipedia volunteer). So, leave this colonial hangover. Free your mind and work against any propaganda that is against your own culture (again assuming you are one of us).

Hinduism is not self destructive. Hinduism never allows foreign ideas specially while denigrate Hinduism itself and goes against basic principles. It is Indian communist propaganda that Hinduism allows assimilation of different ideas since Hinduism does not have better thing on it's own. Even this notion is colonial conspiracy that Hinduism is bad and needs immediate reforms. Read Bhagvad Geeta's 3th chapter: Following one's own Dharma albeit imperfectly is still better than following someone else's Dharma perfectly. (4/35)

Hinduism does not need reform. But Hindus need revolution. Hindus need to follow purest form of Hinduism without man made evil practices. Hindus need to know about their own Dharma which they don't know unfortunately.

I challenge you to directly cite any Dharmic Shastra which says that Hinduism allows tolerance for variety of idea even if it is against Hinduism or represents our Dharmavatar(s )in a bad way. You will not find any. There are many so called Indologists who have tried to propagate this self destructive idea and actually became successful (you're an example) but those who know about Dharma in depth (like me) are not being trapped in their deceit.

What makes you think I am authoritarian for acting against the establishment (wikipedia admins who still allow this article)? If anything I am the rebel. I am the anti-establishment fighter who is fighting for his cause.

Last but not least, keeping that vulgar painting will not make wikipedia better or should I say neutral non-censorship some kind of angel organization. Rather, it will be seen as a dog whistle. Deleting it will make wikipedia look better, cleaned and non-partial. It will also improve wikipeadia's fading reputation. It may be against some middle aged fat admins who don't seem to end exposing their racism and communalism under FOE and non censorship argument. But that is better. Wikipedia should not be 100% tolerant towards everything. IT MUST BE INTOLERANT TOWARDS HATE, VULGARITY, RACISM AND CULTURAL GENOCIDE. Little intolerance and censorship is always good when it is used for betterment of the society. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! – NJD-DE (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on adding it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

> "Its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial"

I have read the whole conversation. It seemed like none of them had any knowledge on the topic/culture whatsoever. Wikipedia needs to tell it's volunteers/admins not to view everything through their own lens specially if they belong to foreign culture. What if Russians make an article on USA terming it a terrorist country since one of their top rated books have told them so? Western admins need to know this that English is a global language. Whatever they write/publish is read/seen by everyone. Just because they got a vulgar painting which targets a foreign community through a so called famous book that they perceive to be a neutral(?) source, does not mean they publish it outrightly. Cultural sensitivities differ from culture to culture. In this fast moving world, WIkipedia needs to change it's policy towards foreign cultures to be relevant.

Anyway, I don't see why a proposed deletion campaign can not be run again since the last one took place a decades back and a lot of things have changed. And the previous arguments were also nonsense. They were talking about notability rather than impact of readers or wikipedia's stance on neutrality and promoting fare speech. Wikipedia certainly does not need article about everything. Garbage propaganda content should not be promoted no matter what kind of popularity they have. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED

Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. We do not remove content simply because it is objectionable or might cause offence, such as Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion. We're an objective encyclopedia, not a religious institution. — Czello 11:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I was told to be blocked was disruptive edit. Nope. My contribution history clearly tells that I did not make any edit twice without a valid reason or without discussion. If my edit was removed, I did something else that was right according to older active users on my talk page. For example, I asked for speedy delete on an article, but it was rejected. I was told that articles like that can't be outrightly deleted. So, I was told to follow regular deletion process. Then I asked for a proposed delete. It was also rejected. Again I was told that I have to list it on AfD page itself. Proof is on my talk page. After I did that, they banned my account. Reason, I did disruptive editing. In that case, the admins who advised me should be banned too. Every step I took was discussed with some senior member in a peaceful way. If this is Wikipedia's handling of situation, then god save Wikipedia because I don't see how it will survive in next wave of political tide which is shifting at a very fast pace. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Krishna and Radha in a vulgar painting, you clearly fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Until you can clearly explain why basically everything you said in your nomination was not justification to remove the article, I'm afraid it would be inappropriate to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 14:39, 23 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I know enough of wikipedia to know that there are more than 2400 articles pending. Not all articles are approved. Even mine one's are not. Reason: either neutrality or insufficient citations. The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Krishna and Radha in a vulgar painting itself has only one citation and a very skewed perspective (ironically the book used as citation has Non-Western Perspectives as the title in it). The article seems to normalize that painting even though we know that painting is anything but normal. 99.99% of Indians don't know that it exists and if they know they'll be very angry. The article seems to tell us that it is pretty normal to draw such vulgar paintings on Devas even though it fails to tell the name of the author. The painter wanted to incite hate/violence using the painting in colonial era under colonial patronage. Fault lies on the publisher to selectively add this hate object in the book. And wikipedia is promoting this garbage as an art even though there are 1000 other renowned paintings or other topics that never gets approved as an article in Wikipedia including my own Draft:Nuclear tsunami which got rejected after some admin thought the article was not neutral without giving proper explanation. Even though I used multiple sources including western ones. Admins see everything through western lens and claim to be neutral. This is hypocrisy. However, the real matter is that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Krishna and Radha in a vulgar painting article was made in 2007 when a lot of bad articles popped up. A lot of them were/are getting deleted. I asked you guys to delete it as well since it does not have any merit/use case in real life except normalizing bigotry. I can say this because I come from the region where this painting might have originate. That's why I have the right perspective to judge it whether the article is neutral/relevant or not. Wikipedia is all about different people with different perspective coming together to make right contents for each region and language. Why is wrong with people who are judging this matter using their feelings (call it communalism/racism?) rather than logic? You guys don't tolerate anybody who does not share your views. FOE shakes every time I give a valid argument. Someone complains about me rather than engaging in topic and reply in a civil way. Saving FOE or wikipedia does not censor itself can not be an argument here. See WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. The article is bad/biased/abuse and it should not exist and I can see it through my Indian lens. That's why it should be deleted. I can also give you an example. Think of it like Holocaust except wikipedia criticizes holocaust rather than being neutral about it. I have not seen any criticism of the painting in the article rather it seems like the article tries to force normalize it. Since the article is Indian content, it should be seen in an Indian lens. However it does not mean that I oppose any non-Indian person making Indian wikipedia content as long as it remains neutral in Indian perspective. Western perspective should be secondary in such cases. It is also arguable for other language. A Chinese should be given preference for Chinese content. A non-Chinese can also make Chinese content as long as it does not conflict with Chinese users and their perspective. Because a Chinese knows better about Mandarin than a foreigner. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's very clear that you greatly misunderstand what Wikipedia is, and perhaps this isn't the place for you. You have not done as Yamla asked, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 23 August 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.

Articles aren't deleted because their subject matter might offend some - see our content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.

I'd also like to address where you said Since the article is Indian content, it should be seen in an Indian lens - we explicitly do not do this as it's not neutral. If you feel that a section should be added regarding controversy surrounding it (similar to Pisschrist) then you'd need to provide reliable sources that demonstrate a notable backlash to it. — Czello 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the article is irrelevant in first place because no one cared or knew about it before it popped up in wikipedia. The article does not have any reliable secondary sources to back up any claims; even claims claimed by the publisher. Recently, news surfaced about this painting that is popularized by wikipedia. Amazon took down an 'obscene' Radha-Krishna painting after people find out someone put a copy of it on sale.[1] More can be seen on Google. Even Amazon does not find it useful. People did not notice it on wikipedia but did in Amazon. What a waste of storage!

Anyway, the article is not worth the trouble. This article is a time and resource killer. You guys could've used the sweet and blood lost over defending this article for over a decade on other valuable projects. Just move on over it. - ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have asked, and you haven't explained, so I'll ask you here: Why do you find this painting to be objectionable? Preferably a one or two sentence answer. Thanks. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the last diatribe higher up on this page, I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boycott Bollywood (October 6)

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

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 organizations and companies). 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:

Non-notable hashtag activism. This content, if it were written neutrally, does not warrant a stand-alone article, but could bear a brief mention at the article for the death of Sushant Singh Rajput.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Boycott Bollywood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

gobonobo ⁺ ^c 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Nuclear tsunami

Hello, ShresthaShome.Ullas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nuclear tsunami, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Boycott Bollywood

Hello, ShresthaShome.Ullas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Boycott Bollywood, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]