User talk:NeverTry4Me/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nagrijuli has been accepted

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nagrijuli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dwaipayan (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible Meatpuppeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty. Thank you..Eesan1969 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Bonadea. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "I'm just curious why you didn't check the refs properly" is an assumption of bad faith.

Please also stop calling your fellow editors "senior editors". There are no senior editors. bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Curiosity should not be bad faith. I didn't attack you but asked you about the removal as I remember, once you said that a census village should have some extra info. So I tried to add some extra info for the notability of WP:GEOLAND. I'm going easy by creating AfC drafts about places, with book and news coverages, and with large areas and populations. Also, I'm concerned about COI, hence I haven't edited my parents' ancestor's villages which (both) are somehow well known to me though I haven't visited those two villages since my childhood as my grandfather moved to the capital of Meghalaya in the early 1960s (too before even my birth). About stay cool, you are mostly correct bonadea. Sometimes I lose my temper when something well sourced are removed, as it happened in Pottu Amman (Tamil militant), in which I added tons of book sources instead of Blogspot refs, but all of my edits were reverted. Can you please check that page? That page's revert really edit-war to me as citing book sources are more reliable than Blogspot blog sources. However, you are an experienced editor, so I honour your removal of the concerned village page, so I didn't revert. This statement is purely in good faith. :) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk

Your recent editing history at Zubeen Garg 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't care who's right. You're already past 3RR, and this does not fall under any of the exemptions. Next person to revert gets blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin Please look at the history here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zubeen_Garg&action=history. I only fought against vandalism with good faith. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
That is NOTVANDALISM. It is a content dispute. Discuss it on the article's talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin I wasn't much aware about WP:3RR. Please consider me for this time. I won't do it again and I promise that with good faith. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tarazuea has been accepted