User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 1

March 2012 - March 2017

Welcome!

Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Clay Shaw have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Sundayclose (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Message to usernamekiran

Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Clay Shaw have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Sundayclose (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours to the page Trial of Clay Shaw has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jack Ruby, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Could you please put a link to your user page or talk page in your signature? I've noticed your comments in talk:2017 are autosigned. See WP:Signatures#Internal links for the guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gangakhed

added a link pointing to Aurangabad

Jintur

added a link pointing to Aurangabad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @DPL bot: thanks for letting me know boo. I fixed both the links. Would like to hangout later? Last time was fun. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Message: Editing Latur Railway Station

Hi, usernamekiran, I noticed in your notes to self you said something about the Latur Railway Station. I looked at the article and it seems to be a mess, I wanted you to know that I am about to start editing the page, as you seem interested in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTnav (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Latur Railway Station

No, I am not from India. I'm from Ireland, I just happened to stumble across the Latur article and noticed it was a pinnacle of grammatical and punctuation errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTnav (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I love Ireland! I used to write about it on my blog. Anyways. The article "Latur railway station", it is not just grammatically impaired, but it is messed up regarding the facts as well. The history is dubious. There are no citations either. Thats why it was on my "to do" list.

Also, I've noticed your comments in are autosigned. Kindly visit WP:Signatures for the guidelines. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your request for permission

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer

 – Our conversation was straying a bit off-topic, so I've moved it here. Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Usernamekiran

• Usernamekiran (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I meet all the criteria listed here, except that the number of my total edits is 900+, with ~500 mainspace edits. ref Mostly, I contribute related to John F. Kennedy, his assassination, and cities and towns from India. ref I have read and understood Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, and Wikipedia:Pending Changes. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Mz7: Hello, would you please take a decision on my request? (Approval/denial)
  But before doing that, kindly check my wikipedia background. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox: Hello, would you please take a decision on my request?
  But before doing that, kindly check my wikipedia background. Thanks.
  PS: I am not here to collect hats.
  PPS: You are aware I can handle rejection very well :-D
  PPPS: How is Marvin? I miss that cat. :-/ —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Thank you for your willingness to help out. However, I do not think your editing demonstrates a need for this right at this time. Assassination of John F. Kennedy is the only article under pending changes protection related to JFK that I found, and you've only made 3 edits to it directly so far. More importantly, I am somewhat troubled by your multitude of recent requests for other permissions at this noticeboard. For example, you requested the "confirmed" user right when your account already has autoconfirmed rights. This is an indication to me that you may not be reading all of the instructions prior to applying for these permissions, so I am hesitant to grant you the pending changes reviewer right at this time. I encourage you to keep doing the work you do, and if you're interested in getting involved in counter-vandalism, I would check out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, and Special:RecentChanges. Once you have a clearer track record established and still feel that you would find this right useful, feel free to come back here and ask. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Mz7: thank you for a understandable reasoning. Yes, that is the only article under pending changes protection related to JFK. I thought it will come handy to have the authorisation. I am surprised myself to see only three edits there. I edited a lot on the conspiracy page though, and a lot more on talkpages. There is a user who makes edits while it is under discussion. So most of my planned edits are stolen. But i dont care as long as wiki is getting better. Frankly speaking, i see myself as an editor, and not as someone who gets engaged in counter-vandalism. I requested for the right cuz recently, on the assassination conspiracy page, there has been frequent vandalism. And sometimes reverting or rollback (twinkle) is not feasible. And i did read all the instructions before requesting. :) thats how i happened to request for "confirmed user right". As i am already an extended confirmed user, i thought I would be granted confirmed user rights. I thought it would be funny as there are around only 300 users with that right. I hope you guys dont think that i am doing this to "collect hats", or to vandalise wikipedia, or to spam, or to do something illegitimate. :-D
  As you can obviously deduct from my history (and creation of QKENCHANT, and John J. Hicks), that even though i dont have a "large" history, I am a serious contributor with humour. I hope you dont get a wrong impression of me.
  PS would it be okay if i consult you and/or Zaphod @Beeblebrox: for guidance once in while? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Perhaps the description pages for "confirmed" right weren't clear (which is not your fault). Whenever a user account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits, their account becomes "automatically confirmed" or "autoconfirmed" for short. Being autoconfirmed allows you to edit semi-protected pages, move pages, upload files, etc. However, some editors wish to keep an alternative account for testing or security purposes. In some cases, a user whose main account is autoconfirmed would also want their alternative account to be confirmed before that account is 4 days old and has 10 edits. When this happens, an administrator can manually confirm users (i.e. give them the ability to edit semi-protected pages, move pages, upload files, etc.) by giving them the "confirmed user" right. This is very rarely granted, hence why only 300 users have the right. It's also why requesting the "confirmed" flag as someone who is already autoconfirmed is meaningless – you already have the rights. I hope this clarifies that a bit. You can feel free to contact me any time on my talk page if you need guidance, and I'll try my best to help. Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• erm... So it is still a no on my request? I am obviously not going to abuse my authourisations. Pinky swear. [And there is nothing to abuse in PCR :-p ] Kindly forget about my previous requests just for moment, and consider my request again, would you please grant me the rights based on my history (except requests for permissions)? I never vandalised anything, i always explain everything that i did on wiki. I am active on talk pages. I believe in "quality over quantity" like wikipedia recommends. Thats why i have so many edits in talkspace than mainspace. Thanks again —usernamekiran (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: It's still a no, unfortunately. I took a second look through your edit history and found that a few days ago, you reverted this edit and left a vandalism warning on the user's talk page. However, the edits you reverted don't appear to be "vandalism" in the Wikipedia definition of the word. Vandalism on Wikipedia is an edit that is made deliberately to harm Wikipedia. In this case, while you may have disagreed with the edit, it appears that the user felt in good faith that the information they removed did not belong in the article. Labeling these kinds of edits as "vandalism" can discourage the users that made them from participating in the project, which is something we want to avoid. For more information on what is and is not vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. I appreciate that you want to help out with reviewing the edits made to Assassination of John F. Kennedy, and I definitely appreciate how you emphasize quality over quantity, but I still feel that you need just a bit more experience at this time. I hope this advice is helpful, and feel free to request this right again later on. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of user activity 98.254.29.150.png

Screenshot of activity for IP user 98.254.29.150

okay :)
But i think it was vandalism, or intended harm to wikipedia. As you can see from his history, he removed the same content for a few times. In reverting comments, i explained the incident was not about the death of the animal, but about the death of its trainer. And kindly look at his explanation for March 7th's edit. That user was driven by emotion. He is either a sock-puppet, or never created an account on wikipedia. Either way, his repeated removal of content constitutes as vandalism. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I do see a similar edit on March 7, but it still appears to me that they believe what they are doing is best for the encyclopedia. They might be holding an erroneous or disagreeable viewpoint, but on the whole, they do not appear to be deliberately inserting harmful information. While you may have provided an explanation in your edit summaries when reverting the user, not every user – especially new ones who are editing from the mobile web – reads those edit summaries. If you truly wanted to start a discussion with the user, a user talk page message should have been made (one that doesn't accuse them of vandalism). I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "driven by emotion", but as I understand it, you can be both "driven by emotion" and still be contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia. Repeatedly removing content does not in itself constitute vandalism. It's the intention that matters. (Also, be careful about accusing editors of sockpuppetry... serious accusations require serious evidence. Where is the evidence that they are abusing multiple accounts?) Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Mz7: you are right. I should have started a discussion first. But as it was an IP user, it slept out of my mind. Even though i am from the background of computer science, it slept of out my mind, cuz here we have "dynamic IP address system". That is, we dont have static IP addresses. Whenever a user restarts the modem, or if the connection is dropped, the user gets a new IP address. Static IP address is available only at requests, that too have to be well reasoned. Due to that reason, i was trying to communicate with him through edit summaries. I dont think i am at mistake for not initiating a conversation on his talk page, however I am at fault for not initiating a discussion on the talkpage of the article.

I was talking about the edit summary of March 7th. He stated

"this was covered before that animals should not be in here, long time ago i added two animal deaths and it was removed"

he didnt even read/understand what he ws removing. The content he was removing, was not included for the prosecution of the elephant. She was prosecuted cuz she killed a man, her instructor. The content was added cuz of the death of the instructor.

"long time ago i added two animal deaths and it was removed"

He was so angry to see an animal mentioned in the article, he couldnt even understand that it was not about the animal's death, but about the death of the animal's instructor.

sock-puppetry: that particular IP address didnt add any content regarding the death of two animals. Maybe he got a different IP address. But I have an inkling, if one looked in the history of that article for inclusion of two animal deaths, there is a very high probability it was included by a registered user. :)

also, as you can see, there is a noticeable gap betweeen edits by this user (no activity between Dec 28 to Feb 26). And if was trying to imorove wikipedia, he would have done some other edits. At the least, he would have contributed to the same article. What I think is, he saw the animal in the article through is registered account, didnt realise it was about the trainer, logget out (or maybe used a different device/internet connection) to remove the content.

he even tried to communicate with editors through edit summary on February 26th. We cant say he wasnt seeing edit summaries by others. When he saw his edit was reverted, he must have seen the edit summary. :-p

in the summary of his last edit, he tried to justify by stating "animals have been executed before". Hence he was definitely reading my edit summaries :-p :-p

anyways. This discussion will just go on and on. I agree i made a bad call. I should have served him a tier 1 notice first.

but you can not overlook my seriousness, and understanding of wikipedia cuz of one bad call. :-/ —usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but even if the editor had a dynamic IP address, typically you can still send them a message on their user talk page and they'll see it before their IP address is reassigned. In this case, it's more than likely that they edited from a different IP address earlier and attempted to add information about animal deaths. In any case, they do not appear to be attempting to deceive the community about the existence of multiple accounts, so I do not think there is any sock puppetry going on. I don't doubt your seriousness, and we all certainly welcome your contributions here. Just keep doing what you do and re-apply for the permission when you have more experience. (I recommend waiting a few weeks, as opposed to days, since it's harder to say you've gained significant new experience in just a few days.)

As for SuggestBot, I'm afraid I don't have much experience with it, but according to User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly, it appears you have to set a |frequency= parameter to tell it how often you want to receive suggestions. If you omit the parameter, you'll receive such suggestions very frequently, as you experienced. For example:

{{User:SuggestBot/config|frequency = once a month}}

will give you suggestions once a month. See the link I mentioned earlier for more details. You can remove SuggestBot's messages by simply editing your user talk page and blanking the messages. Hope that helps. You might be able to contact someone who knows more about SuggestBot than I do at User talk:SuggestBot. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Mz7: thanks for the link, and overall suggestions about SuggesBot. I have already contacted a user who regularly uses it. He will be able to provide me further help. And thanks for the suggestions about experience/PCR as well. Seriously, once i get PCR authorisations, I will splinter the CIA your adminship into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind. :-p
  and i am not a kid lol. I am a goofy ~27YO person, with severely disturbed sleep cycle, with 250+ IQ.
  you are a nice person from NJ —usernamekiran (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my rather intruding question here (I came across your conversation while casually strolling through Wikipedia as usual), but what is PCR authorisation? I can't seem to find anything about that on Wikipedia's internal pages. Given that emotions were running high before (not sure if you really meant you want to threaten someone's adminship), I'm just a bit curious about the conversation between you two and this PCR thing as an occasional editor on Wikipedia. Cheers. --AsianHippie (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@AsianHippie: You dont need to apologise for it! I believe thats how a user learns nee things on wikipedia. this is my personal opinion though.

ohh! You are asking about one of the most powerful authorisation/right on wikipedia itself.
it so powerful that if you have it, you can remove the adminship of any admin. But please do not take me at my words, and read this section regarding PC of the PCR. You will find almost all of the information regarding PCR thrre. The R in the PCR stands for "Reviewer". PCR means a person who has been granted the rights of "PC". And please dont mind the discussion between me and Mz7. We go a long way back. And even though I actually, and literally threatened his adminiship, he knows i am just joking. And please let me know after reading the article that i have mention in this comment. And please feel free to ask any questions to me (regarding wikipedia). —usernamekiran (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@AsianHippie: Just to clarify, Usernamekiran is joking, and "PCR" is certainly not the "most powerful authorisation" and it absolutely does not grant the ability to remove the adminship of any admin. To provide some background, when Wikipedia articles face persistent vandalism, one of the ways we can combat it is by implementing "pending changes" on an article. Pending changes is one of the forms of protection we can apply to articles, but as opposed to semi-protection, which prevents all editing from new and unregistered users, pending changes allows editing from all users, but it does not present edits from new or unregistered users to readers immediately – it holds the edits back until they are accepted or denied by a "pending changes reviewer", or "PCR" for short. Pending changes reviewer is a user right that allows the user to review pending changes, and in order to become a pending changes reviewer, an administrator must manually assign the right to you. When Usernamekiran referred to "PCR authorisation", they were referring to an administrator granting them the "pending changes reviewer" permission. I hope this helps. I think I may have complicated things a bit. If you are still confused, please feel free to let me know and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

VTnav

@VTnav: Please visit and read Wikipedia:Signatures. And please sign your comments by adding four tildes, like: ~~~~
You have the potential to become a good contributor on wikipedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• also, please read this article: Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. If you have any questions or doubts about wikipedia, please feel free to ask me. If I dont know the answers to your question, i will look it up, and let you know. That way, both of us will get to learn. :-D :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi

Hi Usernamekiran. I wanted to let you know that I removed a few of your edits on the above mentioned article. I did this because:

1) You have removed "unnecessary content" without stating why you believe it was unnecessary. For a spiritual leader, I assume it is important to state that his religion is disputed.
2) In addition to that, you have included that Sai Baba was born into a Hindu family. Once again, this is completely unsourced.
3) In another edit, you changed his alternative name from "Shirdi Sai Baba" to "Shirdi Wale Sai Baba", which is unsourced, and no discussion has been taken place for that.
4) In your most recent edit, I believe the article looked better without merging the images in a table.

If you dispute these changes, let me know. Thank you. RoCo^(talk) 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was going to ping you on the talkpage of the article in discussion.

1. unnecessary content: "When asked about his past, he often gave elusive responses."
   i think this is unnecessary to the context of article. The reasoning behind this has been conveyed in the article. There are no sources which states he gave elusive answers. It was through his answer that his birthplace in Pathri town was disclosed.
   • why is it necessary to say something is disputed when it is clearly known and an established fact?
2. i added an adequate source to the statement, which said he is a Hindu. Here it is again. If required, I can provide more sources on this, including reliable sources according to wikipedia.
3. the "sai baba of shirdi" translates to "shirdi wale sai baba" in hindi. Shirdi ke sai baba translates as "Shirdi's sai baba". That is the reason why he is called as "sai baba of shirdi" in english in the first place. This name was in use along with "shirdi ke sai baba", but a film from 70s, Amar Akbar Anthony, further cemented this name with the hit, and very popular song "shirdi wale sai baba". You can look it up on google
   Unfortunately, i couldnt find any sources (on internet) that call him "shirdi wale sai baba", as all of them simply refer him as sai baba. But I am a social person, and i am very well aware that he is better known as "shirdi wale sai baba" than shirdi ke sai baba in Hindu, Muslim, and and other religions (I have good friends from almost all religions including including endangered Zoroastrian religion.
4. yes, i agree on the images debacle. But rest of my edits are accurate.

I am not at all a devotee of Sai baba, the 330 million gods are more than enough for me. It is just a wikipedia article for me. But i have knowledge about him. The part reason for this is because I am from Parbhani, just 45 kilometres (28 mi) away from his birthplace Pathri.

I hope all your doubts are cleared. If not, further discussion is more than welcome. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Rollingcontributor: sorry, i forgot to pink you in previous message. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thanks for the response. I agree with 1, feel free to reinstate that edit. However, the article you cited does not tell that he was a hindu. (or a muslim). It was only claimed that he was a hindu by a trust. If you can find reliable sources that he was, in fact, born into a hindu family, then maybe it could be included. Secondly, I do understand the translation. However, I'm sure we both can agree that he is worshiped in non-Hindi majority places in India as well. Adding the translation would bias the article. Again, if you can reliably source it, it can be included. Anyway, hoping you're having a good time contributing to Wikipedia! RoCo^(talk) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Rollingcontributor: There are offline government records stating a young kid was handed over to a faqir by his (bramhin family) in pathri town. This incident entered the govt records cuz it was controversial. But this family can not be tied up with sai baba, as nobody knows his real name.
  
  

“Shri Sai Satcharitra" written by Govind Raghunath Dabholkar, is accepted by all religions as "based on facts". It mentions sai baba came from hindu family, it doesnt mention the caste or clan though. I dont know how to convert that information as "source" on internet. There are many webistes that claim it is mentioned in the charitra, but the websites dont actually cite it, making it hear-say. But i know for a fact that it is mentioned. We need to get the source.

yes, he is worshiped by non-hindi people as well. But "shirdi ke sai baba" is hindi too. "Shirdi wale sai baba" is just name, it can not be translated like moses - musa le salam, jesus - isa le salam, Gabriel - Jibra'il, or David - Dawood. I mean, a name of a person can not bias an article. We can say in article: he is well known as "shirdi wale sai baba" in non-hindi speakers as well.

And I cant say I am having a good time while contributing on wikipedia. :-/ —usernamekiran (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A few resources on Wikipedia

Once again, hello @Usernamekiran:. I've noticed you have quite a number of articles you're interested in, and possibly want to edit. This tool might help you in the regard. Also, you may add scripts to your talk page that automatically archive old posts. You may want to check out User:ClueBot III. Happy editing! RoCo^(talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Rollingcontributor: thanks a lot for the suggestion again. :)

yes, i do have interest in a varied topics. Most of them are related to JFK, and/or CIA. But ironically, i am editing a lot of "cities and towns of India". Unfortunately, my laptop had some hardware issue. And my desktop is down like since 3 years. I am unable to find SD RAM for it. It is very old P3 computer. So i have to use my mobile for few more days. I didnt edit wikipedia using a computer in this term. That is, 99% of my edits were done from mobile.

once i get the laptop or the desktop, i will start using STiki. I already got permission for it. I think it will be better for me than most of the tools/programs/bots. Currently, i am using my watchlist only, and manual surfing though wikipedia.

and no, i want to keep certain discussions on the talkpage forever, and move the rest to archives. Somi think manual archiving is the best option for me. :)

thanks again.

once i get my computer back working, i will come up with suggestions for you :)
maybe we can work on some article together someday soon :) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Email

In response to your email, it was a little weird that I was suddenly receiving mail from someone I met on Wikipedia. But it is fine, not at all a big deal, do not worry about it. I would prefer if we sent messages through Wikipedia, as the email is a work/school email. I haven't worked on the Latur station article since my edit a few days ago. Best regards and yes it would be fantastic to have you as a mentor! nellucletsog 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTnav (talk • contribs)

Help with templates and Citations

Hi Kiran. I need to ask of your help. As I said earlier, I would love to have you as a Wikipedia mentor. I need your help with templates. Specifically the templates you see at the beginning of articles on the side. Like where it has a picture and then info about the topic. I just need help learning how to insert and use them. Ialso need some help with inline and normal citations and how to insert them. nellucletsog 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTnav (talk • contribs)

Re: Edit Time

HI. I usually edit between 10:45 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. London time. In Japan standard, I edit from 7:48 to 9:00 a.m. every other day and every afternoon around 3. VTnav (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav

@VTnav: I'm from India lol. And there is no need to create new "sections" every time. :)

One can (and should) simply reply to the previous message, except if there is a new/different topic/subject to be discussed.

you can see a sample here: Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories look for a discussion named "second oswald theory, and two with "HSCA" in them. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav: btw, you didn't tell what type of device do you use? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I use a Windows 10 PC and sometimes an iPad Pro. --VTnav (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav

@VTnav: Hmm. Kindly add {{Adoptee|Usernamekiran}} somewhere (anywhere) on you userpage (profilepage). Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Ok, I've added it. I'm beginning to get an understanding of Wikipedia and how citations, templates, and wiki markup works. --VTnav (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav

@VTnav: that is good :) for understanding it better, and faster: go to some article (medium length article) that you are familiar with, like some food, city, or chemical, celebrity or something like that. Copy the source code of two or three sections. Paste that source code into your sandbox, and at the bottom paste this code:

== References ==

{{reflist}}

after saving for first time, you can later add or remove stuff, make changes, and can play with wiki mark up :) —usernamekiran (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your "goodfaith joke"...

What you called a "goodfaith joke", at Talk:Gina Haspel, wasted my time.

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, not to make this kind of "joke" again. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: okay. But may i know how and why did it waste your time? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: I just read your comment on talkpage, i should have thought of that earlier. I am at fault. But you are wrong that i "tried to spread propaganda", or [tried to] "breach trust". —usernamekiran (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai

Hi Usernamekiran! Please see Talk:Mumbai/Archive 15, first and 2nd to last sections, before possibly re-starting this debate. Ah, and note the 3rd brown box from the top on Talk:Mumbai. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Attempt to engage in an edit war at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Your recent editing history at John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• With regard to this revert of your own reversion, you removed a line of text which you knew had been debated at length on the talk page. That is disruptive. Please start a new section on the talk page if you would like to discuss this matter further. Thank you. Earl of Arundel (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Earl of Arundel: In your message above, you provided a link to an edit history. The edit summary of this very edit states "a goodfaith revert", "a consensus should be held on the talkpage, and till then no edits should be made". From which perspective does it look like i am engaged in an edit war?
• Stop indirectly threatening other editors. You have given similar warnings to other editor(s) as well, and it was for no reason as well.
• Further discussion should take place on the talkpage of the article, and not here. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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. Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: The result was: "No violation". —usernamekiran[talk] 11:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: this thread was about this, which led further to this issue.

Re: To become a Rollbacker

Thanks for the info! It is very much appreciated! Aaryan33056 (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Latur

you should notify the author if you haven't already. I am not the author. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: roger that —usernamekiran (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

New posts

Eagle2468 (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Shellwood, Have you made any new posts recently? If you do then pls let me know so i can learn from it! Thank you.

Any new posts?

Eagle2468 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Kiran, Have u made any new posts recently? If u have please let me know so i can learn from it! Thank u.