User talk:Truebrother

Nomination of Malappuram Urban Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malappuram Urban Center 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/Malappuram Urban Center 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 template from the top of the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Ahmadiyya are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Truebrother. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You really need to be careful about WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christadelphians into another page. 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. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. 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. Most new editors don't know about this. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a question to you on the Ahmadiyya Talk-Page

... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala based Geography Article

Dear Truebrother, I have not added information without responsibility even though I looked at Google Maps for information. I have traveled personally in most of the villages and towns mentioned and added information on the basis of direct observation and data collection. For example I traveled personally from Palakkad to Kozhikode last week and added information on localities on the way like Mannarkkad, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram and a host of villages attached to these towns. Most of the photographs were taken by myself and uploaded to commons. Sections like Suburbs and Villages were included as a guide for future editing by other Wikipedians. Please observe my work a little more closely to avoid the misunderstanding. Regards, Prof. Manna (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arimbra Hills, Malappuram

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Arimbra Hills, Malappuram, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wn.com/mini_ooty_kerala_tourist_place_malappuram_kerala.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Malappuram. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. However am not here in an edit war and I know what an edit war is. I had reverted the content of the article manually which might have appeared to be adding new content. This has been rightly notified to the other editor. Someone had accidentally moveed the content to another article which I had to undo. But then somebody having thought this to be adding huge content, did undo which I reverted and let them know about the issue. If you have productive information to provide to the article other than making changes to rightly done contetn please do it. Wikipedia is here to provide information and it should be left that way. Just because something appears to be an edit war, it doesnt mean its one. Kindly take talk to the editors involved before making assumptions and interfering. Please refrain from disrupting with the article content which you have no idea about. Anyhow I will find some way to make it happen within norms--Truebrother (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Truebrother. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. How do you suggest the article be taken back to its previous state without attracting other editors just to undo edits out of blue accusing an 'edit war' like you have done. Making 'undo' something is easy, adding content and keeping it up to date isn't. --Truebrother (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Malappuram, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. From my edit summary: Dear Truebrother. This is still, unfortunately, unsourced material, so must be removed. Surely you have a history book on your shelf you can use?' _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in to the shelf, thanks for the guidance. However the first edit which started all this had even removed sourced content. Does that concur wikipedia policies? Can someone randomly undo content that has sourced and unsourced information without dealing separately? I consider that to be an irresponsible activity to have from an editor, falls well in to WP:VAND. --Truebrother (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). See Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Citation Style 1 and wp:Inline citations. Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jim1138, I had only reverted some content (that has been moved to another article) owing to the relevance to the parent article. There were sourced as well as unsourced information in them, however it was altogether cleaned up unconditionally. Now that it has fallen to WP:EW category. I will try my best to find sources available on the unsourced lot of the same.--Truebrother (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your reminder, however it had appeared that the user User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi was in fact involved in an WP:EW by repeatedly removing contents of which some had verifiable sources. Having realized a dispute in effect, users with disagreement should have discussed it in Talk page [[1]] of the article to reach consensus instead of making reverts after reverts on disputed content including sourced ones. I have used my best to judge the situation and had to put warning template as per the Wikipedia guidance here WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Its in the best interest of Wikipedia that editors are not forced to abandon Wikipedia with their initial efforts or midway despite the shortcomings. The aforementioned user is indeed an asset to Wikipedia having contributed enough to maintain Wikipedia materials by keeping a check on them. However I hope the user stop making arbitrary decisions in editing and reverting as per WP:POINT. Thank you --Truebrother (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Truebrother. 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)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Truebrother. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi,User:Darkwind I have been randomly blocked from editing due to the edit disable put out by you on an entire IP range. Kindly do the needful as I haven't had anything to do with those edit warring pertaining to the multiple Malayalam film articles.Truebrother (talk) 2:40 am, Today (UTC−7)

Accept reason:

See below. –Darkwind (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 48 hours. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. –Darkwind (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Truebrother (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malabar District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]