User talk:Varoon2542

Welcome!

Hello, Varoon2542, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the request for "speedy deletion". I just created my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs)

Hi Varoon2542, sorry about that - I've fixed it for you. Welcome to Wikipedia

~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varoon2542, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Varoon2542! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Dāsānudāsa. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bhakti movement without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts

Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.

In general, when working with images:

DO:
Review the image style guide and use policy.
Give context with captions and alt text.
Try to find at least one image for each article.
Find free images, or create and upload your own.
Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc.
Use the best file format for each image.
Use objects for scale where helpful.
Place images in the section to which they are related

DON'T:
Don't upload non-free images.
Don't use images in place of tables or charts.
Don't use images or galleries excessively.
Don't add images that are not relevant.
Don't flip faces, text, or works of art.
Don't set fixed image sizes.
Don't sandwich text between two images.
Don't refer to images by their placement.

Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. Galleries or clusters of images are generaly discouraged as they cause undue weight to one particular section(?) of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems(?) . Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other; or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar.

An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. The first image of a section should be placed below the "Main article" link usually displayed by using {{Main}}, {{Further}} and {{See also}} templates. Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices. An image causes a paragraph break (i.e. the current paragraph ends and a new one begins) so it is not possible to place an image within a paragraph. This applies to thumb images; small inline images are an exception.

Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other; or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar. As an alternative, consider using the {{multiple image}} template, which places two images together on the right (but which, however, ignores logged-in users' selected image sizes)

Galleries or clusters of images are generaly discouraged in country articles as they cause undue weight to one particular section(?) of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems(?)

September 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mauritians of Indian origin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Satrar (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Even if the whole section is unsourced as you stated, in the case of Wesley Said, his own article has no source material on him having indian ancestry. If I may take the example of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and Vikash Dhorasoo, their respective articles have the references necessary to attest of their indian ancestry

So may I know on what basis you reverted my edits?

Looking forward to your answer

I don't see any problem in adding names but first you should consider reading WP:RS and then adding a reliable source for the names you add to the article. From my side you can add as many names as you want but don't forget to add a reliable source. Do ping my name also once you are addressing me. Satrar (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satrar I'm a little bit perplexed. You are asking me to add a reliable source for a name I want to add but I never added any name... I REMOVED one because the article of the footballer didn't have any reliable source to justify the presence of his name in that list. You are accusing me of doing something that you did and threatening me with an edit war warning. This isn't even remotely fair or coherent

I agree with ZLEA that if you want to readd a name, then it's up to you to furnish the reliable source. All the other names at least have reliable sources on their respective main articles. Varoon2542 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA May I have your arbitration? Varoon2542 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to why you chose me, as I don't recall encountering you before (correct me if I'm wrong). Given my history with Satrar, I'm probably not the best person to ask for arbitration, but I'll give my two cents anyway. While this is not proper usage of the citation needed template (Template:Unreferenced section is the proper template for this case), I agree with Satrar that the section should be sourced. However, because it is currently unsourced, Varoon2542 can justifiably remove Wesley Saïd, or any other name, from the list. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Therefore, if any names are removed from the list ,they should only be re-added if a reliable source is provided.

I would also like to say that the edit war warning is a bit aggressive, considering no one has broken WP:3RR and Satrar has performed two reverts while Varoon2542 has performed only one. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Satrar (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.105 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well this escalated. I'll be watching this case very closely. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA As you may have noticed, all the pages where my edits are being reverted, be it Wesley Said, Nayyara Noor or Fly Anakin, the reverts are made mostly by unidentified editors. How can I be bullied in such a way in full impunity? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely a single editor hopping IPs. If it continues, the best course of action would be to request page protection. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry it has come to this but I need your help to rein in on Satrar. He is now undoing my edits on "Mauritius". He is not even interested about the article just looking for what I'm editing and undoing it. How should I proceed to have him leave me alone? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Satrar is actually correct at Mauritius. You are changing the content without changing the reference.~~ My bad, I missed the ref. Can you provide evidence of a pattern of hounding? - ZLEA _T\^C 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The former reference I disagreed with is from a UK travel guide and my reference is the 2011 Census. The census figures have been used since their publication before the recent modification. I've been editing that page for years...

As far as hounding is concerned, he did it on the following pages, Wesley Said, Nayaraa Noor, Mauritian of Indian Descent, Fly Anakin and now Mauritius. It all started on the Nayaara Noor article which is the most obvious example. Sources n°1 and 2 were already used as reference. I merely added additional information from the same sources and he said they were unreferenced. I kept asking him to read the articles but he undid the edits saying they were unreferenced. The same article spoke of the artist being renowned in the "subcontinent", I edited it to "pakistan" as no source material from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. documents her life, work and death. She might have been a household name in Pakistan, but unless proven otherwise, she was unknown in the rest of the subcontinent. I believe he didn't take that well. I rest my case on this issue. Nothing more to add. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this issue to WP:AN/I. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba May I have your arbitration, please ? He is like stalking me Varoon2542 (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The complaint was made by 116.71.160.23. It seems to me that 116.71.160.23 is just a single editor hopping IPs. I find it a bit rich that an unidentified editor who doesn't even have a user page is complaining against me. The only identified one is Satrar

I've already sought arbitration for what I feel is hounding (please look above). I'm also keen on settling this issue. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Satrar (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. For example, a large number of your recent edits undo other users' edits at Religion in Mauritius with no explanation. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Snuish (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kajol. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Francis Xavier into Goa Inquisition. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Penguino Hello, Can you please tell me to what article you are referring to? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Killing of Nahel Merzouk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. 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) 06:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly cited material

Hello, I'm User:Worldbruce. You added content in an article, Desi, but you didn't provide a verifiable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a verifiable citation and re-add it, please do so.

You cited
```
<ref name="statsmauritius.govmu.org"/>
```
but neglected to define that named reference. AnomieBOT attempted to fix the problem by guessing that you may have meant http://statsmauritius.govmu.org/English/CensusandSurveys/Documents/HPC/2011/HPC_TR_Vol2_Demography_Yr11.pdf. That's a dead link, but even if corrected to https://statsmauritius.govmu.org/Documents/Census_and_Surveys/HPC/2011/HPC_TR_Vol2_Demography_Yr11.pdf, that file doesn't contain the number 812,769. Nor can I find that number in any other file within Mauritius' 2011 census.
You also cited
```
{{cite journal|last1=Government|first1=India|title=Population of Non-resident indians country wise|date=2012}}
```
{{Cite journal}} requires the name of a journal, which you didn't provide. If the author is really the Government of India, it's unlikely that it was really from an academic journal. More likely it was published in a book with an ISBN or on the web with a URL. In any case, you've provided insufficient information for a reader to verify the statement.

You've been around a while, so referencing for beginners may be too basic for you, but you may still find it useful because it links to more advanced referencing topics. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The last ethnic statistics in Mauritius date to 1972 before they were outlawed. Since then, the census compiles figures on religious affiliation and ancestral languages

As 48.5% of the population is Hindu and 17.2% Muslim and all of them from the pre-partition Indian subcontinent, it is widely accepted that they are as much desis as any members of the subcontinental diaspora. I don't think there's any rationale for accepting the source material for Maldives and Bhutan but not for Mauritius

Despite the lack of updated ethnic statistics in Mauritius, indo-mauritians like me get included in all articles on indian diaspora abroad. I thought there was a general consensus on this issue

Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not questioning whether there are desis in Mauritius. The problem is that your description of your sources is so woefully incomplete as to render them unverifiable. A URL that directly supports the number 812,769 would be ideal. If the information is available only in print, then sufficient bibliographic information is needed so that a reader can obtain the source and verify that it says 812,769. (If that number doesn't appear in the source, but you're adding numbers to arrive at that figure, you should also explain your process in sufficient detail that a reader can replicate your results). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Could you please have a look at the page mentioned in the section title (an explanatory essay on en.wp policy), as well as the page concerning restoring challenged edits: WP:ONUS (policy). I see you've been warned about edit warring above. I'd suggest that making use of the talk page leads to better results. As it happens I also live in France and have since well before the 2005 French riots. I'm also quite aware of the RS press coverage of these events. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been warned about edit warring too. Pot calling the kettle black?

Should I point out that you have been chastised for playing down the antisemitic nature of the sentence "we will make a Shoah"?

The information in the lead corresponds to the sources. They stay until consensus says otherwise. So far, you're the only one complaining Varoon2542 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are edit warring now to insert a grammatical error. Note that "a 17-year-old" is a substantive noun. You are mistaken that "adjective order" applies in such a case. As it happens, I'm an English teacher. :)

In the Marianne article you added after I removed the TOI article which said the reports were unconfirmed, the head of the CRIF says he doesn't want to play up conflict between ethnic groups because of a kid spray-painting something on a wall. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and bred in Mauritius where I passed my, Cambridge organised, A Levels in English. Now, I'm a lawyer in France. :)

I stand by that order. Now, I won't be fighting over it. Let us see what those who have english as first language think of it

What the head of the CRIF says or doesn't say to downplay an antisemitic tag doesn't make the tag less antisemitic. On the contrary, it speaks a lot about his fear. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that that was indeed what he sought to convey. Concerning your grammar mistake, I am a native speaker: it is a very common French mistake to say "a French" for "a French person". The rules on this are inconsistent depending on nationality. No biggy, it will get fixed... probably by somebody adding man, teenager, youth, or boy again. :)

Would I be correct that you do not intend to defend your choice to focus on "Arabo-Islamic" integration on the talk page despite the policy explanations furnished above? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not pick the term "French" instead of "Frenchman", "boy", "man" or "youth". I think "French youth" would have been more appropriate

I merely corrected the order. I'm quite surprised that an english teacher and, even more so, a native speaker is questioning the order. The order depends on intrinsicality. A person's age change ultimately, a nationality generally doesn't. It's a horrible rainy day not a rainy horrible day just like it's a seven year old american boy not an american seven year old boy.

I've already defended my stand on the addition of "arabo-islamic integration" on the talk page. The sources point to the nature of the debate being focussed on the ethnic and religious origins of the shooting victim and, later on, rioters. Whether you agree with the nature of the debate or not is irrelevant. The debate took place with these discussed. That's the information. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on lata Mangeshkar

Plz stick to the source. You continue reverting the edit even though the source does not comply with it. All the sources mentioned describe her as melody queen or queen of playback singing which does not equal to most celebrated singer. There is very little consensus regarding that she is most celebrated singer of India when there are singers like Mohd Rafi. This argument is highly debatable. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The sources other than Indian express one are not considered reliable. Also, be informed of wiki policies. You can't decide anything, you need to write what source say. Admantine123 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you decide that only one source is reliable?

The sources you are criticising are mauritian sources and the one you are backing is an indian one. What is this? Indian imperialism?

Should I remind you that the article is on a MAURITIAN statesman?

I'm saying this for the last time. Indian constitutional provisions have no relevancy in Mauritius. There are no forward, backward, scheduled caste, schedules tribe in Mauritian law, societal discourse, anywhere. Just because one clueless indian journalist used one of those terms, doesn't make it more relevant in the mauritian context.

If you knew anything about Mauritius, you would have known that in Mauritius what you indians call forward castes are termed "Grand nations" and what you call backward castes are called "Ti nations" but you don't speak Mauritian creole, do you? What do you exactly know about Mauritius?

One of the sources I inserted is the only comprehensive research work on the issue of castes in Mauritius. It was done by a french professor and it's available in English. The second one is by a Mauritian researcher. Give them a read

BTW, you are not only edit warring, you are also removing sources that go against your narrative which is dishonest and malicious

If you want to disprove my point then go find a Mauritian article that makes reference to indian terminology in Mauritius. Feel free to learn french fast to read "Le Mauricien" or you could read some of the articles published in English by "L'Express"

I don't care much about your threats. If you wish to have me banned, move the issue on the relevant page and let us see what the administrators think. Varoon2542 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae Hello, I'm not asking for help right now but in case the matter were to escalate, I would eventually like your arbitration. I'm acting in good faith. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I haven't looked into this in detail, but as a newer editor it is often a good idea to follow the advice of more experienced editors. If someone with 19,000 edits is telling you that you're using unreliable sources, then maybe you are using unreliable sources and should avoid placing those in articles. Try to be a sponge until you get a bit more experience. There's a lot to learn. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		In recognition of your contributions to the article Killing of Nahel Merzouk. --Cdjp1 talk 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !

That's very kind of you. Truly appreciate it :) Varoon2542 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus into Kashmir division. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake ! I don't actually understand how some of these technical issues work. I'm working on it. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler explanation: When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Seewoosagur Ramgoolam

Stop edit warring on Seewoosagur Ramgoolam or you will be blocked. The other editor has opened a discussion on Talk:Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and pinged you to it. You need to take part there and attempt to get consensus for your version, not just try to push it through by edit warring. Bishonen | tålk 18:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I've answered back on the talk page. Tell me what you think of it. I'm quite surprised that someone who is removing academic references is somehow being given a pat on the back Varoon2542 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Here are the diffs of your 4 reverts on Killing of Nahel Merzouk in the last 80 minutes. There are intervening edits by others in between each edit. I would like to give you a chance to self-revert before someone takes this to the edit-warring noticeboard. I notice you just deleted the last warning given to you about edit-warring on this page.

Regards, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you asked @Bishonen: above what she thought about your addition to another talk page. I see the same attitude and personal attacks there as we've seen on the talk page of Killing of Nahel Merzouk, where you have called me a racist, a xenophobe, and an islamo-gauchiste. Please review WP:NPA and strike these personal attacks from the talk pages. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you remove all three. Notably islamogauchiste comment seems clearly unacceptable as putting aside it being a personal attack, it was also completely irrelevant to the discussion. You might be lucky and escape sanction for the racist and xenophobe comments since SashiRolls did just bring up your ethnicity without reason and in a manner that can reasonably be considered offensive but I wouldn't count on that either. Ultimately SashiRolls said what they said and people can judge it for themselves without you offering commentary. One personal attack doesn't excuse other personal attacks no matter how justified you may feel your comments are. 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get further involved here except to note that I made no personal attacks. Saying someone is a XXX person is not a personal attack, whether XXX=Zambian, French, Muslim, American, or Chinese... It was however apparently a mistaken identity, for which I apologize. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Varoon2542_reported_by_User:SashiRolls_(Result:_). Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request restoration of some of my editing privileges. Thank you. You have come up in the context of you interactions with SashiRolls. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunak

Sorry about the revert there. I misread your summary. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, my edit was later reverted by someone else since long now :) Varoon2542 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir division

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kashmir division have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please note that the lead sentence and infobox maps are an aspect of the WikiProjects India-Pakistan-China consensus of August 2019. We cannot tamper with them unless we have created a new consensus. Also, we can't do a data dump of the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus into this article. By a long-maintained consensus only highly distilled summaries of a few sentences can go into Jammu and Kashmir (state) if there is consensus for them, not into this article, Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing things blindly to hate

Re your edit here: I'm gay and I've been active and vocal in supporting gay rights for 45 years, which shows just how reckless this stunt is of attributing everything you don't like to homophobia and other forms of hate despite your having been given the true and perfectly good reason for it. I removed the link for the exact purpose that I stated in my edit summary. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 34 year old gay man, born and bred in Mauritius

I had to live through homophobia through my teenage years before moving abroad for my studies

The criminalisation of sodomy was a constant argument for our oppression

For years, this criminalisation was mentioned in the "legal" segment of the article, there's no reason that the decriminalisation should find no mention

In 2017, during the gay pride, a muslim cleric, Javed Meeto, took to the streets with 300 of his raging dogs to call for the extermination of homosexuals

I guess you must be blasé after 45 years of supporting gay rights where you now live openly your sexuality but for us it is still a constant struggle

I find your reaction extremely uncaring and insulting for us

You are intruding where you don't belong and that's quite hurtful Varoon2542 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should lay off the attempts at psychoanalysis. You're really bad at it (which should already have occurred to you after our first round, above), and it shows bad faith for you to make up what somebody's dark, unstated motives "must be" to explain their actions here rather than to take at face value their openly declared objective reasons that are based on Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines and unremarkable approaches to organizing an article. Do you find it extraordinary that somebody might oppose something you're doing for completely objective reasons?

How awful something was for you or for me and how great it is for you or for me that it's no longer that way doesn't mean that any place you choose to stick a mention of it is a good place for it. The legal status of homosexual relations is not a core aspect of how a legal system of a country, Mauritius or any other, is structured. It is a perfectly good thing to mention in a section on human rights in the country. It has nothing to do with "caring", and if you're insulted by the idea that information should be presented in an orderly fashion with attention to context, weight, and relevance; if you find conventional editorial practice hurtful; then you're going to find Wikipedia work on the whole very insulting and hurtful. What's insulting is you to ascribe another editor's actions to adverse intentions.

Read WP:OWN. There is no place for you to decide which people do or don't belong working on any area of this project. It doesn't follow from your being Mauritian that the article on Mauritius is a place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that others don't have editorial input into your contributions there. Largoplazo (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from "France", section "Law"

"France generally has a positive reputation regarding LGBT rights. Since 1999, civil unions for homosexual couples have been permitted, and since 2013, same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption are legal.

Excerpt from "United Kingdom", section "Law and criminal justice"

"Same-sex marriage has been legal in England, Scotland, and Wales since 2014, and in Northern Ireland since 2020. LGBT equality in the United Kingdom is considered advanced by modern standards"

You said

"The legal status of homosexual relations is not a core aspect of how a legal system of a country, Mauritius or any other, is structured."

Do you still stand by that statement? I'm really tired of hypocrisy Varoon2542 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still stand by that statement. Can you just try to have a discussion without resorting to ad hominems and drama?

In the France article I wouldn't have jumped directly into the LGBT mention as is currently done there, but a significant difference is that it's included along with other material all of which deals with the relationship that the law has with the people. It should be reorganized a bit by prefacing that part with a cover statement making that point, laying some foundation within which to explain these individual rights including LGBT rights. Then it wouldn't be the same as you had it in the Mauritius article, jumping from Mauritius having this court and that court to a single sentence, presented without foundation, explaining that by the way, they have LGBT rights there. The relationship between the law and the people is a core aspect of the law. LGBT rights fall within that.

At least the French article is further along in that regard than the UK article, which also seems to think LGBT rights are the only demographic group rights that are relevant, but at least it gets a little bit into employment rights too. Still, from the point of view of good writing, there should be, again, some higher level foundation than just jumping into random provisions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpts that you disapprove of on the articles of France and the United Kingdom are still there. What are you waiting for ? Varoon2542 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that taking a position on an issue in one article obligates someone to edit the entire remainder of Wikipedia to make every other article conform to the same position or else to yield, you are mistaken.

I see from the above that you have a history of warnings for edit warring and have been brought up a couple of times on the noticeboard. Do you enjoy that? By now, at least, you should at least know what edit warring is and that it's not approved of. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that taking a position on an issue in one article does not obligate someone to edit the entire remainder of Wikipedia to make every other article conform to the same position or else to yield, you are mistaken.

You saw from the above that I've been accused of edit warring, had you looked deeper, you would have noticed that most of the assusators have been banned, one even came back from the dead after being banned multiple times.

Now, the question remains. The excerpts that you disapprove of on the articles of France and the United Kingdom are still there. What are you waiting for ? Varoon2542 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's as though you didn't read my response the first time you asked that. Your premise, that every time someone addresses an issue on Wikipedia, they are obligated to address the same issue everywhere on Wikipedia or else withdraw their current objection, is not how this works. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We both know why you didn't modify the articles of France and the United Kingdom

These articles are well guarded by an army of contributors from across the globe and editing them to conform to your wishes exposes you to immediate backlash while doing so for Mauritius is pretty much risk free

So please, have some courage and modify the articles of France and the United Kingdom based on the same reasoning you applied for Mauritius Varoon2542 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan (October 3)

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

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The judiciary, political and media impact of this rape and murder case is similar to that of Lola Daviet whose murder has a dedicated article. I fail to understand why these two cases should be treated differently Varoon2542 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this is worth an article, why not try to write it up properly, ending your sentences with periods, formatting the date correctly, and providing at the very least the title and source for your sole source rather than a bare link? Did I miss your name in the AFD over on fr.wp, which looks to be headed towards no consensus... despite its 30 references? I think KylieTastic was right to decline your draft in its current state, had it been properly written they might have had a different opinion. Note that under no circumstances should this be added to mainspace until the question of the OQTF and the administrative battles is added to the sole nationality of the aggressor, which of course is, by itself, not the issue. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You draft as submitted does not show that the impact or notability is of a similar level as you say, or more important at a level that takes it above the Wikipedia notability level. Unfortunately we live in a world where a young woman being raped and killed is, while abhorrent, no longer notable in itself. Note that the first three sources of Killing of Lola Daviet are The New York Times, the BBC and the Guardian followed by many other good sources. If this event is impactful as you say other major sources will have covered it. If you add a couple of those, and preferably some more content, it would more likely be accepted. At the moment you have two short sentences saying she was killed and one source, which is far from the depth of content and sourcing of Killing of Lola Daviet. One source to start you off is this. Lastly, you called Taha Ouadarit "her murderer" but as far as I can see he is still just a suspect. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for the record, your single source failed verification for the suspect's nationality, as the source does not mention it, though it does mention the OQTF. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ramban, Doda and Poonch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]