User talk:RAJIVVASUDEV/Archive 2

Reliability of books

Hi again. I'm not aware of any automated tools to assess the reliability of a book. WP:RSP lists sources which are used frequently, and provides useful links to past discussions about them, but that can't possibly cover the countless millions of individual books that are in existence. Assessing the reliability of books against the guidelines at WP:RS is a task that requires editorial judgement, and it isn't always very easy. Sometimes a book might be published by a reputable publisher, but it receives substantial criticism by the scholarly community in the relevant discipline (or is even completely ignored by that discipline), to the extent that it is a fringe view - we treat sources like that differently to regular sources, as described by WP:FRINGE - it's sometimes (not always) worth mentioning in an article, but we make it clear that it's not a mainstream view. Sometimes a publisher will deceptively attempt to make themselves look reputable, when they are not - this is known as predatory publishing, and it can a good deal of background knowledge and investigation to identify it for what it is.

As I said, that isn't the case with the book you linked to - the publishers are quite open about what they do, and there's nothing dishonest or deceptive about it - but it is clear that it's not a useful source for our purposes.

If you come across a book, and want to know whether or not it is reliable, your best bet is to read through WP:RS and think carefully about the points it raises, with regard to your particular book. Factors that I tend to consider include:

• Who published it? As I mention above, this isn't a situation where some publishers=good, others=bad, but it's a good starting point and worth knowing. If it's self-published, that immediately raises a red flag, so proceed with caution.
• Who wrote it? Are they an acknowledged expert in their field - perhaps an experienced academic working at an accredited university in a relevant discipline? Or a well-known and respected journalist with a good track record in this field?
• Has it been reviewed, and if so, where, and by whom? Were the reviews favourable?

One example that might be worth mentioning is a book on my shelf about Scottish Tower houses. It is self-published, which is a bad starting point; however, it's written by an academic in the field, and I found that it had been reviewed favourably by an archaeologist from Cambridge University, in one of the UK's leading archaeological journals. Therefore, I am confident using it as a source for articles about historic buildings; however, if it contained information which conflicted with information in a different source, which was published by Oxford University Press and was also by an academic, I would either mention both separately, or if I thought that was going to be too complicated, I would go with the one that isn't self-published, on the basis that it will probably have been reviewed thoroughly prior to publication, and so doesn't just represent one academic's view.

As WP:RS notes, reliability isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. A source could be reliable for one assertion, and unreliable for another, and one source could be more reliable than another - it's all about judgement, you can't automate that (well, not yet...). If this isn't the answer you were hoping for, I hope it's been helpful anyway. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I sincerely appreciate your time and help. And thanks for everything. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Citations

The citation you added here looks OK to me as far as supporting the text goes (although you should perhaps look at WP:CT to see how to complete the citation template, in particular regarding multiple authors).

I’ve looked at some of the other citations you have added, and I agree with Roxy that you need to take more care to make sure that the citations you add actually support the text.

As an example, you used this source to support the sentence “The agro-textiles are termed as “Farm to Folk” products.” It mentions “farmers and other actors across the farm to folk continuum”, but it doesn’t support agro-textiles being termed farm to folk products. For that, you need a source saying something like “agro-textiles are known as farm to folk products”, or “farm to folk products include agro-textiles”. I can’t access the full text of the second source (Dierickx, W. (1999). "Opening size determination of technical textiles used in agricultural applications". Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 17 (4): 231–245) you used to support this sentence as it is behind a paywall. Can you quote the specific passage from it that you think supports the sentence? Brunton (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

​ Noted. Let me see. Thanks for your guidance. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The term is removed from the article since it is not an important content for the article. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, and because you have removed the text it was cited to support, the second reference is no longer needed, so I’ve removed that as well. What you ought to be doing now is going back to the other references you have added to articles, and checking whether they actually support the text they are attached to. If they don’t, you should remove them and either (a) add a tag indicating that a source is needed, or (b) remove the text as well. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

They are good. And the deleted reference was not for that particular term. Anyway Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC).RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Which citations that you added did you check in the 43 minutes it took you to respond to Brunton's message? It seems that any reference that you added to the project that has been independently assessed has been hopeless. I agree with Brunton. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog, You must agree with Brunton and learn how things work on Wikipedia; I agree with him because his suggestions make sense to me, and I am happily following his instructions. The rest of the citations are from books which were used after analysis. So I have no doubt. You forget some of the references are already known to you. Kindly recall or I should make you remembered. BTW why are you hesitating to revert them if you have any doubts? Please try.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you understand what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, Yes, I understand why you are going off-topic now because you have no reply and want to escape by doing these tantrums or sometimes keeping mum (Mum is for silence, do not misunderstand it again. Reference Talk:Stenter. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Avoid reverting my edits without any reason. If you will do, I have to undo[[1]], assume good faith If you still have any problem/dispute seek dispute resolution RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you understand what this means? This is a simple question, and only needs you to understand it, and answer yes or no. I see that it is possible, though unacknowledged, that you do understand it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The inedible dog is correct about this revert, the text is so general and uncontroversial that it really doesn’t require a citation in the lead. It’s perfectly clear from the body of the article what the textile industry is concerned with, and the types of raw materials it uses. Brunton (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, yes, I understand this and all of your tricks and also very close to understanding your game plans. I answered you now you answer me about your edit summary a) 100 years. b) the number of years and the block, which are irrelevant. But you have not accepted it yet.

The revert was acceptable, and I was already searching for better sources because it was a step towards the betterment of the project, but the edit summary was not reconciling. That is why I tried to clarify, but you chose to trick. Secondly, for the b) without answering my question, you teased me about provoking your edit summary. You are here to avoid vandalism, not to restrict the new users. Kindly avoid your bamboozling statements and be polite and welcoming to new users.

Did you understand and got your answer. If yes please justify my questions about a) and b) and stop entangling with me. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The references you recently added to Khasa (cloth) failed, with a single exception, to support the text you attached them to. Please take more care to read references to see what they actually say. For example, if you want to support a statement that khasa was a type of cloth used for turbans in the Mughal era, it is not enough just to search Google Books for the words Mughal, turban, cloth, and khasa”; that just finds them on the same page, not necessarily in a way that supports the statement. None of the quotations you posted in those last three references actually supported the text, although rather ironically, because you seem to have been looking at just snippet views of the pages, you managed to cut off the one that actually said, “khasa cloth was a popular variety used for turbans”. Incidentally, quotations should go in “quotation marks”, not italics. Brunton (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khasa (cloth), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issues in Khasa (cloth)

Hello RAJIVVASUDEV. Some of your edits to Khasa (cloth) will be removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material (such as the book The Artisans in 18th Century Eastern India) is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance and help. I shall be more careful. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Your recent editing history at Spandex 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. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle,You stop bullying and misuse of policies and stop harassing and teaming up to trap users. I think we have sorted this issue on the talk page, Do not attack me again and again. See WP:BRD this is how it works. Lets contribute positively. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You do know you can be blocked for edit warring don't you? If you edit war in future, I will warn you again. This is policy. The warning means that it is easier for an Admin to block you procedurally, and you know that I support our Admin team ;) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it? you own it?RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You know this is your problem, you always threat WP:OWN and I am always open to discuss if anything is not agreeable/acceptableWP:BRD. Don't you see the tag--- I am still a learner.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at User talk:Roxy the dog, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well noted. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Khes

The article Khes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG. Refs do not support anything written in this article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy Hi! Since you have already cropped the inadequate material from the Khes. Do you want me to develop it further to meet GNG? Or we can remove the above template. The subject has historical relevance and it is notable. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The subject has not been shown to have notability imho, so no, I will not remove the PROD. I'm not sure if you know this, but you should - you, the main writer of the page, are allowed to remove PROD templates yourself, if you believe the PROD to be unreasonable. just letting you know. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that I can remove the template, but i do not want to do it myself. I am assuming good faith, which does not prohibit us from discussing and criticizing each other. Our objective is common. Besides, the roles are different. .The page has almost been rewritten. Please have a look and reconsider. Thank you RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, our objectives do not match. I am here to improve the project. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Hey you. I've noticed your change in attitude - it's good, you are definitely trying a lot harder to collaborate here. Keep it up, seriously. :) -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 14:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for remarking. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, RAJIVVASUDEV

Thank you for creating Khes.

User:SMcCandlish, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This looks quite well sourced for a new article on a niche topic. It did need some grammar, style, layout and other cleanup, but this seems to be an entirely viable article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SMcCandlish}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am thankful for your time and advice. Kind regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Stripe (pattern)

Please write a separate article, Sussi cloth. Lembit Staan (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Harish Ahuja for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harish Ahuja 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/Harish Ahuja until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Harish Ahuja for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harish Ahuja 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/Harish Ahuja until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, RAJIVVASUDEV

Thank you for creating Kimkhwab.

User:Amkgp, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Next time try to add WP:PROJECT to the respective article talk-pages.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Amkgp}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Amkgp 💬 11:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hi Rajiv, it isn’t the done thing to edit a talk page comment after someone has replied to it. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments for guidance. Brunton (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Noted. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, “you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent.” I had numbered the points, you could easily have used the numbers to indicate which point you were replying to. Brunton (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I was simplifying it pointwise, It is noted. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) .CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and have a funfilled holidays. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Textile Barnstar for you

	Your contributions are appreciated.
	Great work on adding to and helping to preserve Bolt 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir, Thank you so much and best regards RV (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Coryphantha Talk 23:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

@Coryphantha Thank you so much! and best regards RV (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rahon at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, unfortunately, this nomination does not qualify for DYK. You nominated the article far too late (fivefold expansions for DYK need to be made within seven days), and the article only increased from 5719 prose characters prior to your first edit back in October to 6058 prose characters currently, less than a 6% increase. Since you never did complete the nomination—you didn't even include the required hook, much less complete step 3—I plan to have the nomination page deleted. Thank you for your interest in DYK; best of luck with your future nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I got it! Thanks and regards RV (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello RAJIVVASUDEV: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hi CAPTAIN RAJU, Sir, thanks, and Happy new year wishes and season greetings to you too. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards.RV (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar Pedantry Syndrome moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Grammar Pedantry Syndrome, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

DGG I sincerely appreciate your advice. I wish you a very Happy new year ! Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

DGG Firstly I wish Happy New Year to you and your family. Sir, I tried to improve and changed the subject to Draft: Pedantry. But I am observing overly-concerned users over there, and there is aggressive disruption. See [[2]]. Kindly allow me some time, especially/ until it is in Draft. Or I can drop it. Kindly advise. Thanks and warm regards RV (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RV (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You asked for help with the draft here, and so it is not strange that other editors are pitching in. I see no disruption in the edit history for the draft – what do you mean, precisely, by "aggressive disruption"? --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They mean changing anything they wrote. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you think everybody is stupid as you are? Keep quiet; you are already overexposed. And earning badges.RV (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

AfC (Articles for Creation)

Hi Esteemed respected Rajiv sir. I know you are familiar with the AfC process. Please could you explain why you dont use it? Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Esteamed Roxy sir, I am busy in many articles, what dragged you here? Please be specific. RV (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean what is bothering you? RV (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Name? the article. RV (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You create awful, terrible articles. You dont use the AfC process. It would help you create better articles if you did. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You are very poor in judging these things. It is beyond your capacity to evaluate. Further be careful while you go for recommending any article for AFD and remember Bolt (cloth) always. It would help you to contribute positively RV (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

AfC would put your articles in front of a wider gamut of editors - if you think Roxy the dog is wrong, prove them wrong by putting an article through AfC. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. RV (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, Roxy has a blunt way of expressing themself, but they are certainly not a poor judge of article quality, and it is a very good idea for you to take advantage of the AfC process. That would avoid situations like the blatantly inappropriate "grammar pedantry" article which should really have been speedy deleted as a hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea, I appreciate your advice, and it is good. But Roxy, the dog, is not blunt only, but he has other decorations, such as having no civil sense. And NO respect for elderly users. See his views about WP: ARS at the AFD. He is here to harass new users. And always want to target them. Please see the history of few articles Technical textile, khes, Sussi (cloth). The team Roxy rigorously follows me. And target my edits deliberately. Thanks RV (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

New??? How many years have you had an account, rigorous Rajiv? Hmmm? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Only 4 months. RV (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you lying on purpose, or dissembling, or being deceptive, or do you have a poor memory? You have been here EIGHT years. Count them. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're claiming to only have edited here for 4 months, I will have no option but to indefinitely block this account on the basis it is compromised. Nick (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Nothing compromised, that was my first sign, and the account always belonged to me. Thanks RV (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Some advice, Rajiv. I don't know User!Nick above, but I have checked, and he is an Admin. In case you don't understand what he said above, he will block you permanently, unless you correct your lies above. Think about it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, poor Roxy, the dog, you are still interested in my block. Hey kid, things do not work like that at Wikipedia. Remember, you are not a privileged one to use rubbish. Moreover, you need not care about me; there are tools to check every detail, including your ed sum. Better you watch your arse. The word, you are overly using everywhere, I am sure Nick will not be ignoring the sameat the AFD. RV (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

some advice

Please don't continue the way you are now doing. I appreciate that you're adding articles on some topics we need and wouldn't have otherwise, but I would suggest you stick to the article talk pages or the AfDs.. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Sure! I will strictly follow the advice without any ifs and buts. Thanks and Kind regards RV (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks. If you need help , you can always ask me. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Thank you very much indeed. Best regards RV (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

... and yet there is this which you created some hours after what you said to User:DGG above. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, I think this a very good example of the sort of article that RV should be writing. It is very closely related to his interest in Indian textiles, and deals with a subject we might never have an article on otherwise. Writing articles such as this is exactly what I suggested he do. I'll take a more detailed look at the article in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SV, I've blocked Roxy from posting on this page for a week. Please do not post further on his, or I will deal with it similarly. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Well noted all. Thanks RV (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Sir, Kindly visit Mughal Karkhanas and advise improvements. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I made some copyedits (make sure you see the reasons for them), and marked some places were a citation or a fuller explanation is needed. Remember to write in full sentences, not sentence fragments or an outline. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Thanks for your edits, time, and guidance; I have tried to explain there. Kindly check. Regards RV (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal Karkhanas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Administration.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Article for other elephants

Hey Rajiv, I have created articles for some other famoua elephnats also. Hope you have more knowledge about elephants than me. So could you expand them. Inorder to see the list of elephants I created, please see my user page and list of articles I created. Happy editing Kashmorwiki (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki Hi! I don't have any knowledge about elephants. The deletion tag moved me. I was there to rescue the Chirakkal Kalidasan. Thanks RV (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Kind of you. Happy editing and cheers Kashmorwiki (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Thank you and all the very best! Warm regards RV (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Phool Patti ka Kaam, from its old location at User:RAJIVVASUDEV/Phool Patti ka kaam. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sam Sailor 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Thanks RV (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Sam Sailor 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

Mughal Karkhanas

Very nice job on expanding this article !! DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Thank you for your motivation and supoort. Best regards RV (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:36, Wednesday, February 3, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

​ Sir, Kindly review. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As part of a review, could you explain why you have seven citations in the lead? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body text, and needs no citations. You always do this in all your "articles" and I wondered why? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well noted. I will take care of the same. Thanks RV (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cotton bale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject India's Collaborations of the month invites you

You're specially invited to join the WikiProject India's Collaboration of the month program.

The collaboration will help promote many articles to the good and featured article status, but to do so, we need your help! For further information, see the main page of the collaboration.

Sign up for this collaboration by listing your username under the participants section and regularly participating in the collaboration. If you have already signed, please ignore this message.

You can discuss this newsletter here.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

---

Sent by Hulged ⟨talk⟩ on behalf of WikiProject India. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

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. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Staple (textiles). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Accusing others of vandalism when they don't agree with you about article content is not acceptable. bonadea contributions talk 05:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Admin ​ I was improving the page Staple (textiles) and asked for help on its talk page to protect the edits with Reliable sources. There was no intention of personal attacking. The entire effort was an improvement of the page only. Secondly, the issue was almost sorted out on the user's Talk page in subject Roxy the dog. Hence there is no need to block. Kindly help me in unblocking. I shall focus on the content instead of a disagreeing user. Thanks RV (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It appears that you have been unlocked, per below. SQL^{Query me!} 18:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• It does look to me that the block was placed on the wrong editor. The other editor mentioned was extraordinarily provocative, as can clearly be seen from the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would concur with DGG; I'm having difficulty seeing the basis for this block. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  DGG, 331dot: Special:Diff/1020622316 (you could've just pinged me for an explanation...). Last I checked, saying that another editor needs to be trained like a dog isn't exactly "collegial" (username or no). Roxy might need a block for PAs too, I haven't looked too deeply into their behavior here - the diff I linked is the one that was brought to my attention, and it is sufficiently beyond the pale that I believed a block was appropriate. Since this is the second time I've blocked them for PAs, I upped the duration. If either of you disagrees, then take whatever action you feel is appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• GeneralNotability The only reason I didn't ping was because I thought you watchlisted this.(and maybe you did) 331dot (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG, 331dot and GeneralNotability, I shall be more careful with my words. But Special:Diff is a selective presentation of information supporting the position the other user is advocating. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all wikipedians. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Thanks and Regards RV (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but you may not fight personal attacks with personal attacks of your own. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

331dot Agreeing and am embarrassed too. I shall not do this again. Regards RV (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have accordingly unblocked. But be careful--there are some experienced editors here who use their skill to tempt their opponent into doing something blockable. The way to avoid it is think only about the article, not the editor. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

​ You are right. Thank you very much for your help. Warm regards. RV (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Navigation

Hallo, When you create an article for something like Negro cloth or Medley cloth which is known by alternative names, please provide the reader with a route to get to the article from those other names: make a redirect, or add to a disambiguation page, as appropriate. That helps the readers, and reduces the chance of a future editor carelessly creating a duplicate article at another title. Then also bold the alternative title in the lead sentence, as the target of an incoming redirect. Thanks. PamD 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

And please also remember to includ {{reflist}} after the "References" heading, and to give a geographical context if something is specific to a particular country. Thanks.

​ Hi! I understood it after your edits on the mentioned pages, and I shall take care of the same. Thanks for correcting me. best regards RV (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

​ As per advice , I tried it here add to a disambiguation page. Is it ok? Kindly check. Thanks and Regards RV (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The hatnote you added at Barege was longer and more complicated than needed; such hatnotes shouldn't have any extra links, only the link to the article involved. I've trimmed it. PamD 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And I have added your new items to the disambiguation pages at Durant and Tammy: please start to do this yourself. Thanks. PamD 23:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

​ Well noted! Thank you so much and best regards RV (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Remember also that you should make a redirect from any alternative term such as Butcher linen, in case someone else decides to start an article at that title. I've done that one. PamD 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

​ Sure! Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

​:I just tried it with Castor (cloth). Kindly check if i am not doing wrong. Regards RV (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The redirect is good but it needs to be on the Castor disambiguation page too. I've added it. PamD 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

​ Ok thanks, I tried it with Melange (yarn). Regards RV (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yarn conditioning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Nyanardsan were: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Nyanardsan (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RAJIVVASUDEV! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nyanardsan (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please stay away from Roxy the dog. I understand that there are issues, and that you both edit in the same area, but if you are reverted by Roxy just raise it on the talk page. Don't revert back - even if you are completely in the right - and don't make the issue worse by adding warnings. Where Roxy is concerned, act is if you are on a 0-reverts restriction, and ask for help if you find yourself getting caught up.

My concern is that this pattern only leads to one of three ends, and that is one or the other being blocked, topic banned, or having an inetraction ban which effectively means you can't edit in an area where you have a lot to provide. - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilby I sincerely appreciate your concern. Unfortunately, the user always provokes me and sets the trap. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is your choice. But, if it is as you say, walking into traps doesn't make a lot of sense to me. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilby I am getting your point and absolutely in agreement with you. And will avoid any conflict/trap such as [[3]], [[4]]. Thanks RV (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I need to remind you of this, considering the comments during the AfD discussion listed just below. If you need to defend an article, do so as objectively as possible, and do not respond to further baiting. I've left them a similar comment. . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Performance (textiles) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Performance (textiles) 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/Performance (textiles) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Roxy . wooF 19:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

where to ask

If you woud like me to look at something, either ping me during the discussion or ask me on my user talk. But unless the matter has a good reason for requiring privacy, please don't email me about it. It tends to look like an hidden attempt to CANVASS. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this. noted and will surely take care. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bilby (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

331dot,DGG As per blocking user/Admin also, I was not solely responsible for the incident, but even then i was blocked. I also pinged you both when it was happening. Considering my intentions, which were only to care about the project. Kindly unblock me. Warm regards RV (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"The other guy started it" and "the other guy didn't get punished" aren't acceptable reasons for why you chose to act the way you did. You chose to repeatedly insult another editor (and this isn't the first time). Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I understand that you have been the subject of harassment, but you've been warned repeatedly not to get into these edit wars and not to respond as you have. You have repeatly accused another editor of incompetence in the midst of an edit war, and there has to be a limit. I'm not making this a long block, but please, for your own sake, find a solution to this dispute that doesn't involve insults and edit warring. The next stop is likely to be ANI and an interaction ban. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

BilbyDo you think this is fair? See their talk page. I have left messages, warnings and flags for help on time, but the result is you are punishing me. Why? RV (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This time Roxy did revert you in an edit war - but that was all. You also edit warred, but at the same time repeatedly added personal attacks in edit summaries: [5], [6], [7]. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack. Then not only did you edit war over the article, you reverted Roxy's removal of your posts to their talk page. I don't think this is one-sided, and I don't feel that you are solely repsonsible for the current state of affairs, but ultimately we can't repeatedly insult an editor over an editing dispute. - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilby DGG, 331dot I had no intention of going after them personally. I was attempting to correct the user for their error. The restoration of the talk page was to prevent their escape from the involvement of pinged users, which I was waiting to finalize The redirect to Technical textile was valid when the performance (textiles) the original subject was absent. Even after a deletion attempt, the later article was decided to be kept. The relating name should be redirected to Performance (textiles) only.WP:R, WP:OTHERNAMES. Secondly, Technical textile is mere a classification whereas Performance (textiles) explains the performance characteristics and attributes of the Performance fabrics. Hence, It makes more sense to redirect it on performance (textiles). The core issue is still waiting for a decision/consensus. It is not a pissing contest, we have some responsibility. I am still concerned about the same. Kindly advise. Thanks RV (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you had any intention of going after them personally, you did - again, and again, and again, and again. I absolutely understand that you feel you have been goaded, and you have a case. But you need to understand that personal attacks and ongoing edit warring are not the way to fix the issue - something multiple editors have tried to make clear. - Bilby (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I was pinged because I supported the split article at afc. I do continue to think there are two valid articles here.and I am prepared to defend them, hough not by edit waring! This is a classic case where one ed taunted the other into a bloc--I had in fact waned the other ed. about NPA. Bilby, this is on my opinion one of those times both editors should have been block as I consider them equally responsible--applying blocks without taking this into consideration I think promotes edit warring, provided one is clever enough to get the other editor blocked. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I blocked here because only one editor was making personal attacks. At the time I blocked, neither editor had passed 3RR. That said, immediately after RV was blocked Roxy reverted RV again and hit 4RR [8]. I looked today at taking this to 3RRN, but was unsure that it was the right place given the overall situation. I'm happy if you feel that warrants a block as well, or I'm happy to take it to 3RRN myself if you would prefer. - Bilby (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilby IMO Roxy hit 4RR before I was blocked.. Kindly check. Regards RV (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. That said, I'll leave it up to DGG how to proceed in relation to Roxy. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not fair. Thanks RV (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Navigation again

Hallo, Thank you for creating Tubada (coat). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Tubada), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing.

That's my standard message above: this case was a bit more complicated as Tubada was a redirect to the plant, but as it was not obvious which if either was the WP:Primary Topic, I've created a disambiguation page. An alternative would have been to add {{redirect|Tubada|the garment|Tubada (coat)}} to the page at Melaleuca phoenicea: that produces the message: " "Tubada" redirects here. For the garment, see Tubada (coat).". PamD 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

PamD Noted your comments and appreciate all. I have tried to fix the things. Kindly have a look. Regards RV (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)