User talk:Sohom Datta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jiří Rosický (mathematician) has been accepted

Jiří Rosický (mathematician), 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.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sohom Datta. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Justification needed for Peacock tag

Moved to Talk:K Bhogishayana

Please justify your tagging of the page K Bhogishayana as Peacock. Everything in it is sourced except for two minor details which will be shortly. It is all verified, and verified details on a highly notable Figure is not Peacock. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 Off the top of my head:

• This made a tremendous impression on the students, making the incident and the man legend among student circles for generations at the college
• Feared and revered, the students nicknamed him “Boss." An intellectual himself, he still valued students who were athletes.
• Considered a distinguished teacher, he had a strong social commitment beyond education to molding the lives and character of his students.
• Bhogishayana grew the college into one of the best academic institutions in the region in his role as principal.

in addition to this, I have some grave doubts about the quality of sourcing in the article since most of the sources are publications by orgs which he had some involvement in, they are not neutral as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Sohom (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

All the relevant information is secondary sources, there are no primary sources. Note that there is no sourcing from his family, deliberately. Everything is in those sources, please check in detail. The only unverified information at presenst is his gold medal, for which the English Department at Mysore is searching, and the names of his daughters. The later might be removed as less relevant. Those were flagged, justifiably, by @LadyofShalott

Compared to most academics on Wikipedia he is far, far better and independently sourced. That is not a throw away comment, I have reviewed many particularly on AfC. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I disagree almost completely with what you said, most of the sourcing in the article is primary sources affiliated in some way with the deceased professor (for example [1] is a source from the college the professor headed, [2] is a promotional link to the college website, [3] is affiliated with the same college, [4] is from a college where the subject was a principal, [5] is a source from an organization where he was a member), not to mention that the prose is borderline hagiographical.

Just saying Compared to most academics on Wikipedia he is far, far better and independently sourced is not a valid argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Also just to make it clear, I am not saying the subject is not notable (since I personally have not analysed that aspect of the article). I am saying that the sources being used here are primary sources and the language of article has a hagiographical tone. Sohom (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Sources 1-3,5,9,11,15,17,18 are unconditionally secondary. We can debate the others, but your "most" statement is very wrong. Calling everything vaguely linked as contaminated is not how sourcing and notability is done for academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I don't think we are talking about notability here, we are talking about sources, and academic or non-academic nobody has preferential treatment when it comes to whether or not a source is primary. Sohom (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

1-3 are analyses of his brother-in-law's writings, secondary.

5 is an article about the foundation where he is mentioned

9 is about industrial action history

And so on. Not close to primary, please accept that. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1-3 - do not cite any information regarding him, they are about tangentially related information, it does not matter if these are secondary
• 4 Promotional link to college website
• 5 History of a org where the person was a principal, this might be a primary source, might not, but arguably authoritative, though it would be much better if we could figure out what the name of the book was and who published it. (if it was published by the same org, that disqualifies it as a primary)
• 6 Hagiographic message from the current principal of a college where the article subject was a principal, I would classify this as primary (or atleast not of the best quality)
• 7 No idea what this is, I cannot verify via online means that this book exists, or what is being reffered to here
• 8 Primary, listing of past luminaries by college where the person was the principal
• 9 Broken link, unable to verify anything here, but hosted by the university where the article subject works at
• 10 Again, no way to verify this even exists or what this is about
• 11 Some kind of listing of the members of a org which the subject was a part of, primary sourcing
• 12 Ditto as above
• 13 Ditto as above, except as a obituary (I think)
• 14 Award list, this is a good source :)
• 15 The newsreader just lists them as being part of some committee, I guess this is secondary, but barely so
• 16 Hagiographic message from college where the person was a principal, primary
• 17 A link to a org, the the person was in ? Seems promotional
• 18 A offline book, but atleast has a ISBN so I can verify it exists, no idea what it says though.

@Ldm1954 Hopefully the above conveyed why I called the sourcing dubious and primary. Again, I have just pointed out that the sourcing was primary oriented and asked you to improve them, I have not tagged the article with {{primary sources}} or taken the page to AFD for the same. The only specific thing that I did was tag the article prose as {{peacock}} because it reads extremely hagiographical (which is something others have brought up on the article talk page as well). I honestly do not understand your animosity in this case. Sohom (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you are stretching this. For instance calling the professional website of a major college within a university a "promotional link" is inappropriate. Universities are not-for-profit organizations whose behavior and other details is monitored by state institutions, their peers and their governance. These are tighter controls. Are you staying that all University web sites and all the information they contain including library archives, PhD theses, policy papers etc are unreliable? I don't think you will find much support for this position.

You are also stretching some other things. For instance stating "others" when it was one person for an early draft; calling a Marati language newspaper that has been around for 90 years and has a Wikipedia page unreliable is inappropriate; Rotary international is hardly an unreliable source.

To err is human, to retract is divine. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 The professional website of a college is promotional regardless of what it's profit status is, especially if no specific resource is linked to. Also in the context of Indian institutions which recieve little to no oversight from governance and related state institutions (leave alone peers) profit status realllly doesn't matter much.

Regarding your second point, these documents need to be judged on their individual merits. PhD theses are inherently unreliable unless published in a well known peer-reviewed Scopus indexed journal, policy papers pertaining to the university are primary sourcing and archives again must be evaluated on their individual merits (such as the independence of the authors and publishers). If the book is a book about the university, written by somebody affiliated to the university, it is primary sourcing and should be avoided.

Regarding the rest, "others" does refer to the one other person, I still think the article is hagiographical/peacock and I am yet to see any evidence on the contrary.

I am not saying the Marathi newspaper is unreliable, but you have not linked any proof that the article that you cite exists (ISSN/ISBN, newspaper clipping etc) and I said I could not verify anything about it due to this.

Wrt to Rotary International, I do not see what makes it non-primary especially when most of the content cited seems to be listing of user-supplied data. Sohom (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Sohom Datta,

I think it is important to clarify a few points, a key one being about university reports and theses. For a PhD thesis the review process is generally more rigorous than for Scopus journals, since too often journal reviewing is passed off to PhD students. For all major Universities the whole thesis is reviewed by a panel of 3-5 experienced faculty, who may require extensive rewriting. Depending upon the university the thesis advisor may or may not be a member of the committee, for instance in Cambridge, UK they are not. Sometimes there is an external advisor from another country, for instance Indian universities sending the thesis for written comments to someone in the US or UK. In addition, to my knowledge there is always a requirement that several papers have been published, if they have not the thesis cannot be submitted in the first place.

PhD students from India often take postdoc positions outside the country, and the level is typically competitive with Europe and US/Canada. Similarly the level of many undergraduate degrees is comparable. If any university starts publishing nonsense, or awarding "soft" degrees it drops down the rankings and will stop being respected by it's peers and it's alumni will find it harder to get the top jobs. There can also be legal issues, although these are less common and may not (yet) be important in India. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I disagree with this, I am aware of how PhD, Masters and undergraduate thesis reviews are done in India and I have grave doubts on the reliability of the same. I would put more weight on the papers published during the PhD process, especially those with 5+ citations in any peer-reviewed non-predatory journal than a PhD thesis (unless the thesis is a amalgamation of the previous papers, in which case I would still prefer to cite the underlying peer reviewed paper).

PhD students from India often take postdoc positions outside the country, and the level is typically competitive with Europe and US/Canada. Similarly the level of many undergraduate degrees is comparable. I agree since I'm in a similar position IRL :) However, the second statement does not really track due to the existence of prolific degree mills and insufficient scrutiny of academic malpractises (such as plagarism) in the country. Sohom (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not count undergrad or masters theses, few do. Since I have been external examiner I do not agree with your statements about the level at major universities in India, and Shivaji University with an A++ rating is not a degree mill.

It depends upon discipline, but I would not count 5 citations as meaningful. I also know of several theses which are better cited than papers, going back to Maxwell but still others to this day. Often theses contain information and details omitted from "then a miracle occurs" papers.

Describing material from an Indian state university as unreliable is stretching things a bit. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I have been external examiner I do not agree with your statements about the level at major universities in India I disagree but I will take your words at face value :)

It depends upon discipline, but I would not count 5 citations as meaningful. I also know of several theses which are better cited than papers, going back to Maxwell but still others to this day. Often theses contain information and details omitted from "then a miracle occurs" papers. Exactly my point here, which university publishes it is irrelevant. Unless it has been peer reviewed and cited by others, a PhD thesis (or for that matter a research paper) is nothing more than a slightly more rigorous blog post describing something that the researcher has theorized, observed or proposed (figuratively speaking) and would be unreliable. The citations are what lends the paper it's legitimacy.

Describing material from an Indian state university as unreliable is stretching things a bit. I don't think it is imo, based on what I said above. The fact that is coming from a Indian state university amounts to nothing compared to other factors such as what level of peer-review the work (the most readily availiable metric of which is citation count) has been subjected to, the affiliations of the author and the independence of the publisher of the work. Sohom (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, you are insisting that PhD theses are not peer reviewed? They are. Also citation count has never been a metric of merit, only popularity.

I think you are really stretching to retain a somewhat weak position. While we all do that sometimes, we should not. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This conversation should be held on the article talk page. LadyofShalott 12:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Moved :) Sohom (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jalpaiguri deletion discussion.

Hi,@Sohom Datta I want to know that Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas(JNVs) are considered as not notable according to WP:ORG then, Here How So many JNVs Pages are created. I would like to inform you that please see the matter. I have viewed all this jnvs article and found that nothing meets WP:ORG. The following I think should be notable JNV Jalpaiguri's Official Website and this. If anything is wrong here please guide me. Thank You in anticipation. Rasel Hasan🇮🇳 (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mr. Rasel Hasan The short answer is that our notability guidelines have changed over the years, and many pages that were previously created now are no longer eligible under the current notability guidelines. I will take a look at the articles and see if they pass the notability guidelines and if they don't, nominate them for deletion. Sohom (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Kadak Singh

Hi Sohom, I have attempted to create my first page, Kadak Singh. It is one of the more important movies this year with multiple national award winners coming together. Request you to review/ help. Thank you Filmyworldwiki (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look if and when I get time. That being said, Films in general are not my expertise and I'd prefer not to do a full review. Sohom (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Will look forward.

Films are my area of expertise. Filmy World (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Sohom Datta :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Sure, I've answered the questions :) Lmk if you need me to answer any further question (also a really interesting read since it seems like I'm the youngest (in wikiyears) on the page). Sohom (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

• News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

• In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

• Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

• In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

• Comix: Bold comics for a new age

• Essay: I am going to die

• Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

• Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

• Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of DOM clobbering

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article DOM clobbering you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maury Markowitz -- Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for History sniffing

On 5 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History sniffing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that history sniffing has been used to track Papa John's customers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History sniffing. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History sniffing), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,202 views (800.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sohom (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for DOM clobbering

On 13 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article DOM clobbering, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that DOM clobbering attacks can take over your website? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/DOM Clobbering. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, DOM clobbering), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

• Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

• News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

• In the media: Consider the humble fork

• Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

• In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU

• Technology report: Dark mode is coming

• Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture

• Crossword: when the crossword is sus

• Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!

• From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^

• Apocrypha: Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

• Humour: Guess the joke contest

• BJAODN: Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

— mw (talk) (contribs) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you @MaterialWorks, Happy Holidays to you as well :) Sohom (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 7 reviews, for a total of 11 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Robertsky, Happy Holidays to you as well :) Sohom (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to re-review

Hi Soham. You had very kindly reviewed this Afc article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vinod_Tewary in September and given your valuable comments. Based on your comments I have added 3 non-primary references for the research work, and 2 new references for the awards. For the other awards, the article cites Vinod Tewary's main NIST page. NIST is a reputed, authentic, US govt source, and these awards are old. This is the best citation I could find for them.

Request you to please re-review the article and approve it if you find it acceptable now. Thank you! and Happy 2024! Vanimurarka (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't verify a few of the sources, I'll leave it to some one else to take a look for now. Sohom (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

verify -> access Sohom (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request SodiumBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SodiumBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Good point, I have been working on this on and off, need to get it finished. I'm struggling a bit on parsing-navboxes-land. But I think I should able to figure something out. Sohom (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

		MediaWiki Extensions Barnstar
		Thanks for all the debugging you help me do with MediaWiki extensions. I FINALLY got that integration test to pass CI, thanks to you pointing out the bug :) —–Novem Linguae (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :) Sohom (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sohom (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Engmohamed2004 (21:24, 9 January 2024)

مرحبا اريد نشر مقاله لتطبيقى --Engmohamed2004 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Engmohamed2004 I'm unsure of what you ae saying here, I do not understand this (I assume Arabic) script. If you want to contribute in Arabic, we have a Arabic language project here :) Sohom (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)