Jump to content

User talk:Tiger7253/Archive 1

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

India

You might want to use the talk page to discuss your changes rather than getting into a revert war. See WP:BRD. --regentspark (comment) 18:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Singaporeans' map problem

Hello,

I want to change the display of this map, as justified in the talk section. I informed you, as you're one of the major contributor, the creator of this map and as I want to talk to find a solution.

Thanks in advance,

R3sJAP155M (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Suvarnabhumi Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

India

Hello there. Thanks for bringing your insights and enthusiasm to Wikipedia. I thought I'd let you know that the India page is a Wikipedia WP:Featured Article, the oldest country featured article on Wikipedia, as such its language and prose is the result of years of hard won consensus. Other than spelling mistakes, if you want to make essential edits, please post on the talk page first (See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Featured_articles. Also, I hope you mind my saying this, but your post on the Talk:India page insinuating that being Indian (rendered in boldface) somehow privileges an editor in editing the India page runs against the principles of Wikipedia. It may have been made in jest, but it might be off-putting to non-Indian editors. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for the message. I was somewhat incensed that the infobox for India listed no establishment event beyond its colonial history, as opposed to most other major country articles. The exclusion of landmark establishment events that are already prominently listed in the main article made no sense to me whatsoever, and so I rendered 'Indian' in bold out of frustration because I am used to the patronising British viewpoint that India failed to exist as a country before they unified it - and the exclusion of it (plus all the support for the exclusion of it) on a supposedly neutral Wikipedia page just touched a raw nerve. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Indic script

Please read WP:INDICSCRIPT. It is a community consensus. BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Which makes me wonder... if an actor wished that their own native name be displayed in their native script on their biographical pages, would they be allowed to override the 'community consensus'? Tiger7253 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There is some guidance on that sort of thing here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relationship_between_the_subject.2C_the_article.2C_and_Wikipedia. BollyJeff | talk 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Singaporeans

Hello @Tiger7253:, I noticed you uploaded a mural image of the main Singaporean ethnic groups last week. I've noticed it's been deleted for copyright violation. I thought it was your own picture that you took but I'm not sure since it's been removed and I also don't understand the comment that claims it was copyrighted material. I thought it was a good picture for the page so I want to know what happened. (137.147.137.7 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Yes, it is actually my own picture. It is entirely my own work. Absolutely ridiculous that it got removed, but I shall get it reinstated. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I thought I read at the bottom when you first uploaded it that it said it was taken by you. I've also noticed the same user has removed other user's images as well but I'm not sure what the context was for those images to be removed. However, since this is your own photo, that user shouldn't have removed it maybe they made a mistake or something. (121.219.249.70 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhoby Ghaut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghaut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobic edit summary

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Singaporeans. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Xenophobia is unacceptable. Calling someone a Western troll is not tolerated here. Firebrace (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Can I suggest something? If you are unacquainted with a particular region or a particular part of the world, perhaps you should refrain from editing content related to it and should stick to what you're familiar with instead. You just reverted my edit on 'Catholic Junior College' and 'Changi General Hospital', but if you knew anything about Singapore - if you actually lived here - you would know that at every government institution, like a hospital, or at every government owned-school, the names of it are displayed in all four official languages at the entrance of the buildings. When I walked into school, I'd see a signboard in front listing the name of it in all four languages. When I graduated from school, my results slip was titled in all four official languages even though the school had an English name. When I go to Changi General Hospital and walk into the reception area, the name of it is listed in all four languages. You're reverting perfectly acceptable information that is completely relevant to the Singaporean context because you're assuming that you know more than actual Singaporeans do. First-hand information actually counts for something on Wikipedia if it doesn't need to be sourced and referenced - and the translations don't exactly need sources. Your actions mimic that of a troll obsessed with reverting and causing bother to others rather than someone who is actually concerned about following standards on Wikipedia. Therefore, I shall be reverting if I deem it necessary. Thanks. Tiger7253 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Almost 100% of your edits so far have been reverted by me and other editors. Your edit at Moon was particularly funny. English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil might have equal standing in Singapore but they do not have it on English Wikipedia, where English is the only official language. If one of the native names of an establishment is English why even mention the other three on here? It looks messy and unprofessional... Firebrace (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
My edit to Moon was done in jest so that I could demonstrate the ridiculousness of having Greek and Latin on there (highly Eurocentric) - and as expected, all of it got deleted. Job well done. Furthermore, I have made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, and it was I who brought the entire 'Singaporeans' article up to scratch. Perhaps you could find a better use of your time instead of trying to nitpick at every single one of my edits.
Your gripe isn't valid if your gripe relates to how 'messy and unprofessional' it looks. Wikipedia doesn't operate based on one's personal feelings about the tidiness of an article. 'Ng Teng Fong' and 'Changi' are Chinese and Malay names, respectively, so your other point there doesn't stand either given that you just reverted the native names on their respective articles. If you feel so strongly about the English Wikipedia avoiding all non-English words and scripts, then feel free to get rid of Chinese name on China, on Shanghai, feel free to do away entirely with all the names on the Singapore article -- or are you just nitpicking? Wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of non-English words and scripts. Feel free to challenge that policy in higher circles. Do you understand that you're going against what is perfectly normal policy by bringing your personal feelings into it?
@BushelCandle: Given that you have been overwhelmingly appreciative of my edits, I would appreciate some help out here as User:Firebrace just doesn't seem to get it. Thank you. Tiger7253 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)
I have no idea what policy you're taking about; maybe you can provide a link, if it exists... Firebrace (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Tiger7253: I have looked for the policy and the best I can find is a guideline which says alternate or native names can appear in geographical infoboxes in articles for cities, national subdivisions, and countries. Hence the lack of a 'native name' parameter in the non-geographical infoboxes you have been editing. You have been appending the various translations to the 'name' parameter, which is incorrect. Firebrace (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Calling me a Western troll was a really bad idea. Firebrace (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace: You shouldn't have erased Sanskrit from Suvarnabhumi Airport's page. It wasn't even added by me, in the first place, but you probably got rid of it out of spite because you probably thought I added it. It forms a genuine part of its 'etymology', which is something very relevant to Wikipedia. Etymology =/= dictionary. Anyway, I shifted it to somewhere other than the lead sentence. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
And re: the airline article, the policy states: "When an airline typically uses both an English and a non-English name, format the airline field as: | airline = [Name of airline in English] [Name/s of airline in native language/s and/or transliteration/s (newline between each if more than one)]" - therefore the person that added it wasn't doing anything wrong as Singapore Airlines does indeed use all four languages. How did you manage to assume that the airline doesn't use non-English names? also re: Ng Teng Fong hospital, you deleted all languages except for Chinese, but the 'native name' in the Singapore context doesn't just refer to the actual language that the institution was named in, but in all native, non-English languages. Either all three non-English languages are included, or they're all left out. There is no in-between. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You have again made the mistake of believing that you are in Singapore and everything on here has to be like the road signs and documents there. You're on Wikipedia. We don't care if the road signs are in 200 languages. Wikipedia is not a road sign, a phrasebook or an official document. There is no encyclopedic value in adding translations of a native name when the English name (like Himalaya) is also a native name itself.
Per WP:INDICSCRIPT, "there is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script", only English transliterations (e.g. Himalaya). I will be deleting Indic script from leads wherever I see it. I think clear policy is needed on the use of Indic script in infoboxes. Don't forget to sign your reply. Firebrace (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace: Then I shall be creating a separate Etymology section for the Himalayas article, since the etymology of it forms some relevance to the article and explains the origin of the name - that certainly has encyclopaedic value. Or, alternatively, I could use the native name parameter in the infobox, since there is nothing prohibiting users from doing that. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Tagore MRT Station

Hello, I noticed you included Tagore station in the TEL pages as 'TE4a'. Can you please provide a source of this from any LTA source? Hume and Bukit Brown are included as it is confirmed by LTA, but Hume is not confirmed so 'Reserve station' was stated. Please provide a source before reverting. Thanks. 33ryantan (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@33yantan: I don't have a direct LTA source, but I referred to the Thomson Line Construction blog:
(http://thomson-line.blogspot.sg/search/label/TE04a%20-%20Tagore) that has a couple of posts about the Springleaf-Tagore-Lentor sector and a couple of diagrams depicting the construction process. I'm unsure as to whether Wikipedia considers this an acceptable source, although in my opinion I suppose it's fine given that it shows physical proof of the station being constructed. However I'm not sure about 'TE4a' so perhaps that can be left blank? Tiger7253 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've already changed the articles, I hope you agree with the changes. 33ryantan (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Re [1], I have been editing and watching Gardens by the Bay since 5 December 2015 – 10 days before your first edit on Wikipedia. [2] You're not the only user with an interest in Singapore. Please read WP:AGF and don't falsely accuse people of spying on your edits again. Firebrace (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Alright. If you need me to clarify, I added native names to both the 1) Botanic Gardens and 2) Gardens by the Bay because 1) the Botanic Gardens is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the native languages count as a part of its heritage portfolio, and 2) Gardens by the Bay is a national/state-level park so my addition was pretty self-explanatory. I don't just add native names without properly thinking it through and checking for native name parameters in the infobox. As for Changi Airport, that wasn't added by me but the same standard is applied to Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Warsaw Chopin Airport, etc. so as far as I'm aware no rules are being violated here Tiger7253 (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
You didn't add the native name (Gardens by the Bay); you added the name in the native languages. My understanding is that the 'native name' parameter is for when the local name of a subject differs significantly from the name given to it in English. For example, K2 is called K2 in English but something completely different (Chhogori) in Pakistan. Otherwise the parameter would be called 'native language' and not 'native name'. We need clarification on this issue. As for breaking rules, you have previously stated that you're doing this to "keep the language alive" which is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Firebrace (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace: Well, yeah, it is obviously a bit more complicated in the Singapore context. Given that every prominent institution here is required by law to be named and signposted in all four languages - this doesn't happen in many countries - I see no reason why the three official non-English local names shouldn't be included in the native name parameter. Taman di Persisiran is used by the Malay community to refer to GBTB and is signposted all over the roads leading to the gardens, and right in front of the entrance, and it will be signposted in the upcoming Gardens by the Bay MRT Station - and excluding it from the Wikipedia article when it has a very physical presence here makes no sense. It's not exactly obscure or anything.
The closest example I can think of is Switzerland because they have many official languages: Check out "Federal Assembly (Switzerland)" and you'll see that there's a similar arrangement in the infobox. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
As I've explained to you before there is only one official language on the English Wikipedia. Our readers by definition speak English so they will have no trouble recognising the English version of the subject's name. For Malay speakers there is a Malay Wikipedia. For Chinese speakers there is a Chinese Wikipedia. They will not be coming here to read about Gardens by the Bay if they don't speak English.
I see no reason why the name 'Federal Assembly' should be translated into four different languages. It serves no purpose other than to give German, French, Italian and Romansh speakers a warm fuzzy glow when they see their language 'up in lights' on English Wikipedia. For the majority, who don't speak those languages, it is an inconvenience, particularly when they're using a mobile device... Firebrace (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace: I guess you have a point. Your viewpoint makes sense, and I can understand where you're coming from. I however also think that the rationale for including other languages goes beyond merely including the 'native name' when it differs from the English name. I think many people include it because they feel that it has encyclopaedic value, that it serves to document the languages being used in as many articles as possible. EU-related pages like the European Union, the European Parliament and so on have an insanely long list of languages in the infobox title, and even though it serves absolutely no purpose to English speakers, it is a subtle nod/acknowledgement to the EU's multilingual nature and effectively drives that point across by being prominently splashed out at the top of the page.
Not the best explanation, I know. There is a lot of confusion regarding this matter, and so I think there needs to be more discussion so that a fixed interpretation of the native name parameter can be agreed upon. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace: Also, this may seem a bit of a stretch to you, but I wouldn't apply the standards on English Wiki to the standards on other Wiki sites. English Wiki is the dominant and most prominent Wikipedia site with the highest number of articles, and given that the English language has a status as the global lingua franca, and as the lingua franca in many countries where English isn't the native language - in Singapore's case, the vast majority of us (myself included) speak English as a second or third language while we speak our mother tongue/native language at home - I really think adding the native languages to the infobox is the least that can be done in order to prevent non-Anglo-related articles from looking far too Anglicised. It drives the point across that we are not a part of the Anglosphere, we are just an Asian country that happens to have English as a lingua franca because of colonialism. In the case of Parliament House, Singapore, if all the other languages were erased out of the article, there would be nothing differentiating it from just another Parliament building in a Western country - which we are not. I believe the issue is far deeper than merely providing people with a 'fuzzy glow' when they see their languages in the infobox. I doubt you will agree here because this is a viewpoint specific to non-Anglo English speakers. I suspect that is also why many Indian Wikipedia editors are so desperate to add Indic scripts to infoboxes and articles - so as to differentiate India from being just another English-speaking country. English is a unique language in the sense that many people of non-Anglo descent speak it, and therefore English Wikipedia should cater to us as much as it does cater to actual Anglo people. There should be a middle ground.
Regardless, the fact also remains that the Malay language is officially ranked higher than English in Singapore (Malay is the constitutional and indigenous national language while English is the language of the government), so at the very least - if only one other language is to be included in the infobox - it would have to be Malay, as is the case with all Malaysia-related articles - because anything of national importance should have the indigenous name of it documented for encyclopaedic purposes (see Uluru). Tiger7253 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tharman Shanmugaratnam, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't remove information simply because of reasons like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'm afraid there has been a mix up here. Lee Kuan Yew's page does not include the Tamil language. Lee Hsien Loong's page does not include the Tamil language. Then why does Tharman Shanmugaratnam's page include Mandarin? He is not ethnically Chinese, nor is his mother tongue Mandarin, nor is Mandarin the lingua franca of Singapore. This wasn't an edit made based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I simply reverted something that was completely unnecessary. If you have a reason for its inclusion, then by all means, please state it. Tiger7253 (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Indian Singaporeans
added a link pointing to Inderjit Singh
Malaysian Indian
added a link pointing to Indian languages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The other names have already been included in the 'Names' section. Why the duplicate

re this edit in the article Swastika it is normal to have the alternative names, especially if they are used as redirects, in the first sentence of an article. this is detailed in the Wikipedia:Manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names.

The lead section serves as a summary and introduction to what follows in the article, it is expected that content in the lead will be repeated, but expanded upon, in following sections.--KTo288 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you know this, but the edit was a pointy response (please see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) to a dispute you were having above. Whether or not alt names are included in the lede or not depends on the article, how widespread and accepted it is and if it has a history of use. As a rule of thumb if its an established article, one with a solid edit history and multiple editors, if there are no alt names don't add them.if it does have alt names don't remove them.--KTo288 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Please read WP:HIDDEN. This hidden comment inserted by your is entirely inappropriate. Hidden comments are used to reflect consensus decisions and further instructions on content in order to assist other editors, not to threaten or cast aspersions as to your personal point of view surrounding other contributor's content and intent. Articles have talk pages for a reason: being that they are there to be used as the meeting ground for editors to discuss content related issues. Do not substitute edit summaries and hidden comments for civil discussion. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Aryan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add to Kautilya's note above. Please stop adding OR and your opinion to articles stating WP:OSE arguments. Continuing to do so will result in the loss of your editing privileges. —SpacemanSpiff 08:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Infobox

Hi Tiger7253, is there a previous consensus you're referring to? I couldn't find it through searching. CMD (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: On second thought, it doesn't matter. I actually agree with your change now after Lemongirl explained the rationale behind it. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! CMD (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tiger7253. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Post on Talk:India

Better remove/move that post on Talk:India regarding user conduct to the right venue. Not only unrelated to the article development, it can be interpreted in a bad way, since you've post against an editor from a specific area on a page watched by editors (likely based on their viewpoints)--see WP:CANVASS. Besides that, do not refer to another editors work as vandalism--see WP:ATWV and WP:NOTVAND. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I have removed it. Thanks for the heads-up. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Italic removal

Hi there, re: this and some similar edits I've noticed, I'm curious what your rationale is for removing italics from the title of a film. The move seems inconsistent with MOS:ITALICS to me. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) Heya, I removed the italics for cosmetic purposes because it looked out of place with the rest of the infobox. I'm not too sure about the policy towards films on MOS:ITALICS, but if italics are absolutely mandatory, let me know and I shall reinstate them. Tiger7253 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It would be much appreciated if you could fix them, please. The relevant aspect of MOS:ITALICS is "Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films..." I've fixed a few of them. There's also nothing in the Template:Infobox name module that discourages the usage, so my belief is that the community understood that these non-English titles would be italicized. And as a purely OCD thing, I tend to put the parameters closer to the top of the infobox because that's where editors would expect to find it if they were looking to edit it. Doing it that way helps to reduce the likelihood of duplicate parameters appearing. Regardless of where the parameter appears, the infobox will display the same way (with the Indic script) underneath the image, but it seems neater to keep the Infobox name module toward the top. It'd be extra credit if you could move 'em, but I won't force my OCD on you. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) Sure thing. I'll do it sometime later this week, my computer is currently fried and I'm posting from an iPad. I agree with your views about the position of the name parameter, that actually bothered me too. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit regarding pakistan regional power

Tiger7253, this is the 2nd time you have reverted the edit. First you demanded authorised references. This was provided by TownsHill.
The principle of WP: NOR (No original research) applies, the references you removed is post-1971, and there are two of them by the way. Please don't accuse falsely someone of making chavinistic edits. We will report this abuse to the arbitration committee. In your first reverted edit you cited the lack of referencing. Two references have been provided. Once you have published your original research, regarding a regional power thesis in a respected academic journal that post-1971 (India is the only regional power) as you specified for your 2nd reversion then please remove so. A 3rd reversion from you will lead to the Wikipedia arbitration committee and discussion of violation the rules regarding edit warring (reversions), violation of WP:NOR and assumption of bad faith that TownsHill would make a "chauvinistic edit", despite providing two references upon your original request. Wikipedia assumes good faith. Kind regards (Wiki id2(talk) 21:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

Wiki id2 (talk · contribs) I took a look at your page, and suffice to say, I'm not surprised that there is zero objectivity coming from you. Have it your own way, but do not make the mistake of assuming that you are in a position to take me to the arbitration committee given your own history of bias towards a certain country. You will be standing alone if you do that. I have made major constructive edits, and there are people on Wikipedia that can vouch for me. Tiger7253 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal accusations regarding "zero objetivity" and "standing alone" is not a way to address another wikipedian and to threaten them by saying "people on wikipedia that can vouch for me" illustrates a lack of committment to upholding the highest academic and ethical standards. This sort of personal abuse is unaccaptable, I think we should take this to the artibration committee and have a discussion on the talk page. (Wiki id2(talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

Arbitration committee.

Please record your statement here regarding your dispute of "regional power": Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Tiger7253

Kind regards (Wiki id2(talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

December 2016 and WP:NPA

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Yep, it was erroneous. I forgot to log in. I only use this account for editing, there are no contributions on my public IP address. Cheers :) Tiger7253 (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You also need to read no personal attacks page thoroughly and abide by it. I think that you have already made enough attacks against specific editors to warrant admin action. Please be very careful in your language from now on. I am giving you an ARBIPA alert for good measure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Yeah I agree, it's actually quite visible from all the posts on my talk page that I've been a bit of a hothead lol. I'll try my best to be civil from now on, even if I completely disagree with someone else's edit. By the way, I like your name on Wikipedia. It's very Mauryan Tiger7253 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for understanding. Also, the second paragraph here does not belong in an article talk page. The discussion there should be about content, not conduct. Any conduct discussions should be done on User talk pages, and, when necessary, at WP:ANI. Your tendency to label editors with words like "nationalism", "chauvinism" etc. will be received very poorly when you go to admins. If you want to get anywhere with the admins, you need to have a clean conduct yourself. So, perhaps you can delete or strike out the second paragraph? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Tiger7253. The Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Regarding removal of phrase "regional power" (with 2 references) from Pakistan article arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. It may be advisable to review WP:DR for next steps. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Himalaya

The original text says "himalaya" in Nepali and "himalay" in Hindi which sounds different (the accent is on the a in the first and on lay in the second one. Just wondering? --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Heya, the original text was:
"The mountains are known as the Himālaya in Nepali and Himālay in Hindi (both written हिमालय)."
The diacritic (or accent) used in this case is a macron, which is positioned over the same 'a' in both transliterations. The transliteration for Hindi misses the non-accented 'a', or schwa, at the back. As both the Nepali and Hindi word for the mountains is a direct and unaltered borrowing from the original Sanskrit word, there is probably no schwa deletion in the word in either language. Both transliterations are the same. However, this could also be disputed, because many tatsam Hindi words that are direct descendants of Sanskrit practice schwa deletion, while Nepali tends to preserve the original Sanskrit pronunciation. Both the previous edit before mine as well as my edit are technically correct, it just depends on your own personal interpretation. I just felt it would be more prudent to group the two together because the Devanagari spelling is the same. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Phew. I'll take your word for it :) --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I reverted your edit because you made the dubious claim that dictionary.com is not a reliable source. You disregarded my edit summary in your reversion without explaining yourself. Dustin (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Apologies, I had to revert your edit in order to roll back the other user's edits. I shall reinstate it Tiger7253 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: I was just looking through the edit history of Swastika and I think there has been a mix-up here. I am not the user with the I.P. address 79.47.1.216, I am someone else. Is the current version of the page as you intended it to be? Tiger7253 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep; you're right. I somehow confused you with the very IP you reverted. If I understand it correctly, the IP made the claim that Dictionary.com is unreliable and removed / changed some of the article's etymology information in an edit, which was then undone by me, reinstated by the IP, undone by you, reinstated by you, then undone by you again, all through a confusing series of reversions. It seems that the current version contains the original Dictionary.com information. Sorry about this. Dustin (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: Haha, it's all good. I got confused, too, but that's what happens when you don't have admin privileges - can't roll back a bunch of edits in a single go. On a separate note, I keep a watchful eye on the Swastika page because it has the tendency to attract people who casually disregard well-referenced edits to push their own POV. Happens all the time given that it is a contentious topic for people in some parts of the world. One example of such POV pushing is the denial of its Indian link, we've had people (mostly white nationalists) make disruptive edits along those lines. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If you use Twinkle (which can be enabled here), you'll have a "[restore this version]" button that you can use in such scenarios. Anyway, it's nice to see that we understand each other now. Dustin (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Class455 (talk · contribs) I have to refute your claim that my edits have been 'unconstructive' and 'disruptive'. All articles on Wikiproject India that refer to places (like Delhi, Taj Mahal, or Indira Gandhi International Airport) have their native names listed in the 'native name' infobox parameter. A certain user reverted and arbitrarily deleted the native names in infoboxes of Indian airports claiming that this violated WP:INDICSCRIPT, but anyone who has been on Wikiproject India for a while now will know that Indic script is prohibited from the lead sentence, not from infoboxes with native name parameters. What I merely did was restore the articles as they were before a certain user decided to erase the native names. I have not violated any Wikipedia rule nor have I done anything disruptive or unconstructive; I have rather prevented further disruption. Hence, I shall be restoring the native name in Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, seeing that you removed it again without any legitimate reason. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thats not the point here, You keep on changing the name of the airport without consensus on the talk page. That is disruptive editing. The airport's name is officially Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, not Maharaj, so we go by that. I will revert it back until a consensus is formed on the article's talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Class455 (talk · contribs) I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I am talking about the inclusion of the airport's native name in its native script (the airport is in India, not Britain, in case you have realised) and you have brought up a different matter that I have nothing to do with. I did not attempt to change the name of the airport in any way. Has there been a mix up here? Tiger7253 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe I understand what is happening. Tiger7253, when you did this, it added "Maharaj" to the name. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs) Thank you for clarifying through all this confusion. It makes sense now. I intended to restore the native name, but was unaware that there was a squabble going on over the inclusion of 'Maharaj'. It would appear that Class455 (talk · contribs) mistook me for one of the squabblers when I was not involved in any of that, as evidenced in the edit history of that page. I shall be restoring the native name without 'Maharaj' in it. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that was the issue. I don't know how though you managed to add "Maharaj" to the name (unless you copied it from a diff). That clears it up. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Looks like the IP that added the indic script also added Maharaj. Leo Frank reverted all the edits that the IP had done and Tiger7253 thought they were only restoring the indic script. Quite understandable. But I do notice that the Maharaj is included in the indic script version. Is that correct?--regentspark (comment) 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Singapore, you may be blocked from editing. Additionally, please take care when adding text to the lede that it summarizes material in the article body, per WP:LEDE ... richi (hello) 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Richi: My addition to the lead was a summary of the text found in the 'Culture' section of the main Singapore article. Feel free to check it out yourself. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your snark is unnecessary; I ask that you AGF, as I did yours. There are many problems with your edit, including:
  • I didn't see justification for "cultural pluralism", which BTW has a specific meaning, separate from "multiculturalism". This is why I conclude you've SYNned
  • you used the wrong, dab WL
  • editors have been trying to reduce the lede length of this article, so adding text that we might charitably call "marginal" is unconstructive
  • you added an WP:EASTER at the end of the sentence [wags finger] ... richi (hello) 10:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Indic script in infoboxes

Hello. I would like to discuss this civilly rather than mass-revert and edit war. I had a discussion with another user here about this same issue; I believe it will help you to understand my viewpoint. Also, you said that this has "been argued about countless times"; could you please direct me to those arguments so I can read up on them. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion outcome is at WP:INDICSCRIPT (you'll need to read all the linked articles). Unfortunately, that RfC only addressed the lead so the consensus applies only to that section of the article. There is no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion of indic scripts in other parts of the article (e.g., the infobox) and it is best to treat each one on a case by case basis. --regentspark (comment) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: I read through the whole discussion that led to WP:INDICSCRIPT. As I said in my discussion with the other user, I believe adding Indic scripts to the infoboxes leads to the same exact issues that prompted the WP:INDICSCRIPT discussion. I feel it is a poor attempt to circumvent the MOS rule. Don't you think it is odd that we can't write the Indic script in the lead, but it is okay to place it in the infobox? @LeoFrank and @HkCaGu: I noticed that you agreed to the removal of the Indic script; could you please offer your opinions. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: "Don't you think it is odd that we can't write the Indic script in the lead, but it is okay to place it in the infobox?" - It isn't odd, rather, it's a compromise. The editors reached a compromise that made everyone happy, because until there is a Wikipedia rule that enforces a blanket ban on all non-Latin and non-English script and text on English Wiki, it makes no sense to completely purge articles on Wikiproject India of their native scripts and texts when it can actually be of encyclopaedic value. In the case of Delhi, for example, the native script provides encyclopaedic value by explaining how differently the name is pronounced in Hindi (Dilli vs Delhi). As for the airport articles, one may argue that including the native names serves no encyclopaedic value, but then the same could be said for the millions of place/infrastructure-related articles all over Wikipedia (Beijing Capital International Airport, Zürich Airport, Suvarnabhumi Airport). Should they all be removed? I agree with your argument here in the sense that conflicts over which languages to add should be avoided. Therefore, if there is ambiguity, in the case of Srinagar International Airport, then perhaps Indic script can be ommitted. If there is a clear-cut consensus on what language should be added, then it should be left alone eg: Marathi and Kannada are the only obvious options for Mumbai's and Bangalore's airport articles. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I too would like you to seek consensus before adding non-English names to the English WP. I'm sympathetic to your example about pronunciation, but I'm sure there's a better way of making that point (probably involving IPA) ... richi (hello) 10:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Richi: Seeing that you just reverted quite a number of my edits, perhaps you might consider doing the same for the non-Indian airport articles I mentioned above? Tiger7253 (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tiger7253: You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Other stuff exists is not the reason to re-instate some content that has been agreed upon to be deleted. You gave the same reason for reinstating maps on Changi Airport which has been reverted now.
Coming to Indic scripts, RegentsPark (talk · contribs), if you agree upon the reasons why Indic scripts are avoided in the lead, I do not see why the same problem may not occur for the infobox. How would the same problems given in the RfC be overcome for these indic scripts in the infobox? If both the lead and the infobox have the same problem, why not just remove them altogether in both the places? Stating that WP:INDICSCRIPT is only for the lead and not the infobox is not a valid reason IMO. — LeoFrank  Talk 11:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
LeoFrank (talk · contribs), I agree with you. Like I said above, the RfC was confined to the lead and that's why the consensus applies only to the lead. There is no consensus that indic scripts can be included elsewhere so, if on an individual article there is consensus to not use indic scripts in an infobox, they should go. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
But that isn't the case here, is it, LeoFrank (talk · contribs)? Indic script in the infobox is not content that 'has been agreed upon to be deleted' - there is nothing on WP:INDICSCRIPT that says that. Where would a consensus to delete Indic script from the infobox start and end? Infrastructure? Biographies? Place names? What do you propose here? Tiger7253 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no policy-grade exception to the MOS. So unless you can point to consensus that we should have non-English text in an English WP article, please don't add it ... richi (hello) 13:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
On one hand, richi (talk · contribs) says that non-English text has no place on English WP. On the other hand, LeoFrank (talk · contribs) uses "Other stuff exists" in order to justify retaining non-Indic non-English scripts whilst getting rid of Indic script. So, who should be followed? Should we follow richi and get rid of Chinese and Cyrillic script, or should we just target Indic script even though there is no formal consensus about letting it go from English WP entirely? Tiger7253 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If I were FSM for a day and could rid the project of just one destructive editor behaviour, it would be WP:WL ... richi (hello) 15:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indic script was removed from articles because of the conflict over which to use – this problem apparently does not exist for articles on non-Indian subjects. Regarding "where would a consensus to delete Indic script from the infobox start and end?" In the RfC, editors discussed adding Indic script according to geography, etc.; however, these discussions did "not meet a level of consensus needed to pass". — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Warning

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shimlaites (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiger, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. I don't quite get this edit where you reinstated the Indic script without providing a clear explanation. If Shimlaites objected to its inclusion because it was unsourced, where is the source for it in your resubmission? Please don't resubmit it until there's consensus to do so. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Shimlaites (talk · contribs), I am pretty sure that it is you who started the edit war by blanking content en-masse, so I would appreciate it if you could refrain from posting passive-aggressive things on my talk page and shifting the blame to me. When a user decides to reinstate content that has been constantly blanked by a certain user, it is often the latter that is engaging in edit warring, not the former. Also, aren't you supposed to archive your talk page instead of blanking it because you don't like what people have to say on it? I'm pretty sure archival is Wiki policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) Tiger7253 (talk)

Addition of Notable Sindhi Hindu list

Hi Tiger, re: this, it's rather problematic that you added this list without double-checking that each one of those articles contained references to support that each individual met both the Sindhi qualification as well as the Hindu qualification. It's also problematic that you didn't provide any additional sources if you found that the articles didn't contain appropriate sourcing. This leads me to think that you were relying solely on your personal knowledge for this list, which is unsuitable as it constitutes original research. Please avoid this in the future. In the interim, the unsourced content is being removed, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion that's taking place at Talk:Sindhi Hindus. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for your message. I shall continue the discussion at the article's talk page. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kola Boof (author)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kola Boof (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Area of India

Hi. As you know, India's exact area is subject to debate but still the UN mentions India's area as 3,287,263 sq.km. That is absolutely correct. But the figures for land and water area in article List of sovereign states and dependencies by area were earlier incorrect and equated to something in range of 3,166,000 sq.km. I have corrected them. As per UN and Wikipedia article of India (see the note with area figures in infobox of article India), land area of India is 2,973,190, not 2,864,000 and knowing land area and total area, you can calculate total area. That's 3,287,263 sq.km. This area includes regions illegally occupied by China and Pakistan (India includes the area of occupied regions in its total area but not their population, similar is with UN). That must be mentioned with a note and I have done that. I am writing this message to you because you corrected total area but not land and water area. Since the land and water area were not correct and didn't equate to total area, some user changed India's total area figures. Now that all figures are correct, I think there is no confusion. Please see yourself and yes, do read the complete note with India before intending to remove that. It is needed in the article to avoid confusion. Regards. Vibhss (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the lead in India

Hi Tiger7253. Though I reverted your changes to the lead please don't take that as a comment on the content. The para you modified was extensively discussed on the talk page (Talk:India#Lead_redux) and you should propose your changes there, perhaps in the same section. (For the record, I'm ok with some of your suggested changes and not ok with others but that's why we should use the talk page!) --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Heya, thanks for the heads up. I actually didn't know there was a discussion about it. I'll propose it there :) Tiger7253 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Indic scripts

You keep trying to push the boundaries of WP:INDICSCRIPT, most recently at Narendra Modi. You've got to stop doing this otherwise you could find yourself completely banned from adding/amending them. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hi, I disagree in this case. "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script" - first sentence of WP:INDICSCRIPT. If I were to violate this decree, I would be pushing the boundaries, and there would be grounds for a ban. My recent edits were not made to the lead, nor the infobox, but in a separate template, and I did not contravene the consensus. In addition, Indic script was already present in the articles that I edited - Narendra Modi, Pranab Mukherjee, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. My edits did not change anything, but were rather mere re-positioning. I agree that my edits were premature, but I believe this requires further discussion as it feels like a better alternative to Indic scripts in the lead/infobox without contravening the consensus and causing clutter. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, so by using a separate template that lies immediately below the primary infobox you were effectively gaming the consensus. The whole point of that consensus was to avoid clutter, minimise the likelihood of vandalism etc and limit any scripts that *were* applicable. For example, I am sure that we could find well over 100 script variants for Modi's name, given his prominent position in India - it doesn't mean that we should do. Similarly, in theory you could put scripts in the article body rather than in the lead but you'll just bring a whole load of trouble on yourself and on the wider community.
You need to understand why the guidance exists, not merely what it says. Honestly, I would drop this if I were you. It is just opening another can of worms and we have had umpteen discussions about such worms at WT:INB even since January this year, yet alone in earlier years. The consensus is pretty clear and if you push it you may well find that scripts will be prohibited completely in infoboxes also - many experienced Indic-area contributors have already said that is their personal preference. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sitush: I get your point. Anyway, on the other end of the spectrum; it would be good if other editors stopped violating the consensus by removing Indic script from geographical articles. There is clear consensus
here that says that geographic locations are excluded from WP:INDICSCRIPT - all agreed upon by a bunch of admins. Some editors are indiscriminately removing Indic script across city and state articles, which could count as unexplained deletion of content. I just reinstated the native names on West Bengal, Karnataka and Mumbai. Virtually all other state/city articles use the native name parameter. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The two are not the same issue. If you have a problem with people removing stuff in a way that seems contrary to the RfC then you should raise it either with them, on the relevant article talk page or, if absolutely necessary, at some broader forum - WT:INB would usually be best in those circumstances. But such removals do not give you the right to add stuff in a manner that runs against exactly the same RfC etc. There is a saying in the English-speaking world that probably has an equivalent in umpteen other languages: "two wrongs do not make a right". I am really, really trying to keep away from Wikipedia at the moment because I am fed up of it but, please, feel free to seek input of other people in good standing if you still disagree. I think you're going about this particular thing in entirely the wrong way but I am also aware that you seem to be doing so with the best intentions. I apologise for any gruffness - I'm apparently known for being rather terse with people (others have mentioned it) but right now even I can see it might be an issue. It is one of my faults and, alas, I suspect I am too old completely to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the discussion you keep referring to here did NOT exempt place-names from WP:INDICSCRIPT - it achieved "No consensus" other than "Using IPA to clarify pronunciation". Please follow the link to the clarification which was "remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation". - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest being very careful when adding indic scripts to people for BLP reasons. In a diverse country like India, assuming that everyone will be perfectly happy with having their names rendered in this script of that is an exercise fraught with blp issues. Since this is an English language encyclopedia, it is best to stick with English. While there is no consensus on place names, we should bear in mind that an article littered with stuff that few of our readers can read is distracting and not particularly helpful. Simplicity is the first principle to follow when presenting information. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Kola Boof (author) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kola Boof (author) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kola Boof (author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Taketa (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsovereign entities

Well, actually, European Union as well is not a sovereign entity, as Brexit has clearly demonstrated. According to your statement, even the reference to the European Union must be eliminated. The EU is not a sovereign entity, to the extent that the legislative and administrative powers are referred by individual states from which it is composed. It is not "superiores non recognoscens", which is the first assumption of sovereignty. We can argue about the meaning nowadays of the locution "superiores non recognoscens", but, in the common meaning of international law, almost exclusively States are sovereign, with the notable exception of the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which is not a State). The state of Vatican City is not sovereign, having as "superior ens" the Holy See. By contrast, the reference to the Eurozone represents a major economic and financial interest, as recognized by the International Monetary Fund, which has in fact recorded the extent of its GDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robur.q: The Eurozone is still a monetary union, which is not the main focus of the article. Adding monetary unions to the list opens a whole new can of worms, and we'd have to include every single entity included in Currency union. The EU is a non-sovereign entity that shouldn't be on the list either, as the article is clearly titled 'list of countries'. I do not know who added the EU in the first place, but feel free to start a talk topic on the article's talk page to discuss its removal with the other editors. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Visa policy of Nepal into Visa policy of Bhutan. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Hi, thanks for your message. I copied the text for template purposes, and then erased the information in it by replacing it with text already found in the Bhutan article, so it is a complete alteration that just preserves the template. Thanks for the advice though, I will factor it into my future edits. Tiger7253 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
In a case like that you should still give credit in your edit summary. For example "Attribution: content in this section was adapted from Visa policy of Nepal on April 6, 2017." Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagalog. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Swastika.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Please do not remove sources or restore unsourced content once it has been challenged. Instead of lecturing editors with edit summary to discuss / get permission to remove unsourced content, please respect core content policies and do not restore fringe / pov-y / any content that is unsourced and has been questioned. The wikipedia guidelines apply to you as much as they apply to others. Please review your own user space talk page history above, including the notices and cautions by admins and others. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I dispute your claim that I have been disruptive with my editing on this particular article, and I reject you using my prior history above to explain my rationale - many of my edits have been thoroughly constructive. Your message on my page - bolded text, taking a swipe at my character, threatening me with a block because of 'disruptive editing' - is highly condescending, and is an attempt (at least from my point of view) to bully editors with fewer privileges into acquiescing. You are violating good faith. Much of what you said could also be extended to you -- you made major edits to the article without seeking any consensus whatsoever. The onus of the discussion fell on you first. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Please review editing guidelines and respect community agreed wikipedia's editing process. Anyone is free to edit and improve any article, add reliable sources, tag or remove unsourced content/OR if and when appropriate. Discussion is required only when there is a reasonable basis for dispute or an actual dispute, not before every edit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Swastika, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Caution forr removal of content with a deliberately misleading edit summary (first moving it and then deleting it, claiming that the text was duplicated...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Swastika, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for POV removal of content, apparently trying to "prove" that the swastika originated as a Hindu symbol in India by removing mentions of its use in other cultures. See page history of article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm referring to your unexplained removal of "In the Western world, it was historically a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck" from the lead, which is not a trivial and uncontroversial removal, since it explains it's fairly widespread use in Europe long before the swastika was appropriated by the Nazis. So do not remove it again without getting support for it on the talk page! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: Please do not hit me with silly threats like "you may be blocked for this and that, etc." That should be reserved for trolls, sock puppets, and vandals; I'm neither. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about good faith, which is something users with more administrative privileges seem to love violating by constantly threatening to block other users because of misunderstandings or a tendency to abuse their power. You can get your point across without threatening people. Your assumption about my POV is also not rooted in fact, those are your words, not mine. Tiger7253 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you read this and this beforee trying to remove mentions of it's ancient use in Europe: the two oldest objects with swastikas on ever found were both found in Europe, the oldest one dated to 15,000 years ago and the second oldest one dated to 12,000 years ago, i.e. long before the claimed spread from India that you added to the article on 4th June... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: Both of the 'sources' you just directed me to are blogs written by... bloggers. None of them are peer-reviewed academic texts or books. The first one you linked me to - The Renegade Tribune - is a White Supremacist blog that frequently spreads anti-Semitic rhetoric and talks about 'White Genocide'. Automatically discredited - not because of the political views, but because it is a blog with a specific POV. The second blog you linked me to - Ancient Origins - is not an established source either. You tried to argue against POV-pushing, but you mistakenly just pushed another POV by attempting to pass off these blogs as credible sources.

As far as I am aware, the so-called Ukrainian 'Swastika' that was dated to over 12,000 years ago was nothing more than a paleolithic Stork in flight (and I actually quoted a reputable source, not a blog). As important as it is to give the Swastika a balanced view, it is also important to push back against Slavic nationalists and white supremacists looking to hijack a Wikipedia page and use it as a forum for their outdated views, based on outdated research from the 1700s and 1800s. I am well-versed with the tactics of this demographic. Please come up with more credible sources the next time. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The swastika was very common as both a sun symbol and a symbol of good luck in Europe, from islands in the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, from many thousands of years ago and up to the mid 1920s or so, when it was appropriated by the Nazis (for a late example of that look at the military aircraft insignia used by Finland up through WW II, a swastika that was chosen as a symbol of good luck in 1917-18, i.e. before the Nazi party was created and started using the swastika), and there are thousands of examples of its use in ancient times (it was especially common in Europe during the bronze age and during the migration period), and removing any mention of that, as you are trying to do, violates WP:NPOV, one the pillars of Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: You haven't yet addressed the fact that one of the sources you showed me is a White Supremacist blog that calls for the persecution of LGBT people and non-white people in Europe. Am I supposed to be convinced when you're presenting me with sources as tainted as this?
I am aware of the widespread usage of the Swastika in post 1900s Europe, but that usage (especially the one in Finland) is directly linked to the British Raj and European colonial expansion in Asia - the four-legged, straight-legged Indian Swastika is the version that is represented on the Finnish insignia. Indian and Chinese cultural exports were popularised in Europe in the 1800s and 1900s - Mary Antoinette's circle in the Versailles palace enjoyed Chinese silk and embroidery, which revolutionised French couture at the time. The Swastika was not present in modern European and Finnish culture prior to the British Raj - there is gap of its usage from ancient Europe to modern Europe. It simply did not exist during that period. The 'Swastikas' that you refer to in ancient European culture look nothing like the traditional Indian Swastika, but rather variations or derivations of it - curved, pinwheeled, circular, but not straight-legged. The straight-legged Swastikas seem to have seeped into European usage from an Indic source in the 1800s.
Furthermore, no living culture apart of the Indic realm (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) uses the Swastika in the 21st century. If you feel that a vestige of history is more notable than a living example, feel free to discuss that in the talk page of the main article. I don't think I've seen you there yet. Almost every editor seems to want to place an emphasis on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, whilst still including a one-sentence token reference to Ancient Europe in the lead passage, which is no more than what it deserves. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't add them to the article, so it doesn't matter what they were. As for the rest it's just plain silly, there's absolutely no link between India, the British Raj and the choice of a swastika for good luck on aircraft in Finland, the very widespread use of swastikas all over Europe not only during the bronze age, and before then (which predates the British Raj by several thousand years), but also continuously since then in several parts of Europe, up to modern times.
What matters here is that you, by removing mentions of its use elsewhere (with deliberately misleading edit summaries to boot) and adding dubious Indian claims about having discovered how it was spread from India 11,000 years ago, are trying to claim that the swastika is an Indian "invention", when umpteen reliable sources say that its widespread use on many continents shows it was "invented" separately and independently in many different parts of the world, are guilty of POV-pushing, an offense that is blockable if you continue with it after being properly warned. As you have now been. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: 'Dubious Indian claim'? That 'claim' was made by researchers from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), one of the most reputable and respected institutions in the world - an institution that has produced many of the Indian CEOs that now lead Silicon Valley companies. Or are claims and sources only considered reputable on Wikipedia if they are written by white men, which is strange, considering much of the academic literature on the Swastika was coined by British and German historians eg. Max Mueller, that have a proven track record of white supremacist and colonial rhetoric? Who is to say that European sources aren't biased in favour of Europeans? Every source is biased. Some are just more biased than the others.
I'm afraid I need to clarify myself again: The Finnish Swastika was first used in 1918. It was non-existent in Finland prior to 1918, but if you have any proof of this, I would welcome that. The same Wiki article goes on to state that modern European usage of the Swastika only amped up when Indology became popular in the 1800s, which lead to Europeans adopting it as a good luck symbol. You're confusing ancient usage of the 'Swastika' in Europe (now an extinct practice) with the later, modern adoption of it in the 19th century - the latter is a product of outside influence, as the Wiki section clearly states. There is a gap between the two events. The latter event has nothing to do with the former, i.e. it is not a 'continuation' of the European pagan traditions, which died out a long time ago. My timeline is indeed correct; increasing Orientalist interest in India and the Far East were responsible for the modern usage of the Swastika in Europe. I'm not talking about the ancient era. Tiger7253 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
All of your claims, about the European swastikas not being as old as claimed, about the spread of the swastika from India 11,000 years ago and a lot more, are based on a single government-sponsored propaganda piece from a bunch of researchers at various IITs (which are not the world-leading academic institutions that you seem to believe, but placed well down the list in international comparisons; IIT Kharagpur, the oldest one, being ranked 300+ to 500+ in international rankings, and the others further down), working outside their fields of expertise. A propaganda piece that makes many other claims that suit the current government in India, such as the Vedas being much older than there is serious evidence for, etc, and is taken seriously only in India, if even there. So yes, it is a very dubious source. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: There is nothing wrong with the 'current government in India', nor do your opinions of the government Indians have democratically elected for themselves matter in this discussion. Even the most benign governments in the West harbour a bias against other civilisations. I can see which road this conversation is heading down, and I'd like to steer it off that road. Going back to the topic, I fail to see how the ancient European patterns got classified as 'Swastikas' - how does a Greek key or a Lauburu look like a Swastika? Are we operating based on scant research from 19th century Indologists who decided to link these symbols to the Indian one based on a theory? Is there concise proof that the Lauburu is linked to the Indian Swastika? I haven't learnt about these 'European Swastikas' where I am from - it doesn't appear to be taught anywhere in Asia at all. I doubt it's even taught in Europe, for that matter, because it all seems like conjecture - and then there are the Nazi connotations to boot. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Padmavati

Are you serious? The rules says, WikiProject India's style guide does not permit the use of Indic scripts in the leads or infoboxes. Instead use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. Care to highlight where is says, film articles are an exception? —Vensatry (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that Sitush and RegentsPark have already explained things. Making further reverts shall be considered disruptive editing. —Vensatry (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiger7253/Archive_1&oldid=1142732264"