Template:Attempting wikibreak

Hey, thanks for keeping an eye on the Nirmal Baba article and improving it :) Noopur28 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2012

Everything does not require verification. Vinayak9192 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinayak9192:, you are under wrong impression, It appears you don't understand the guidelines i posted in previous comment, EVERYTHING MUST BE SOURCED AND VERIFIABLE ON WIKIPEDIA, This is a basic principle otherwise everybody will start glorifying their cities with unsourced claims... this is not how Wikipedia works... you are free to write your own original thoughts and research on a personal blog, but not on Wikipedia.. thank you.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99, I have read all that which matters with principals. I have reviewed the changes people have made and hence I thought to ping you. This is a short change and sources are available but not with quick effect so don't go with wrong assumption. Sources will be attached soon. No people are going to glorify cities like you think. I am a resident of the concern city and that's what I use to make changes based on current affairs. I think this talk should not be longer anymore.

Thanks. Vinayak9192 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinayak9192:, your statement that "I am a resident of the concern city and that's what I use to make changes based on current affairs" indicates that you have either did not read or unable to understand the guidelines listed at WP:NOR and WP:NOTTRUTH which clearly states that " "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" and "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." If you are not able to read and understand the basic things then you should stop editing Wikipedia because as per WP:INCOMPETENT, some level of Competence is required here and based on your statements and incapability to understand basic guidelines it appears you are lacking it... Please understand basic things and unless you have some queries on policies, you are not welcome on my talk page with statements like "I Am resident so i know everything" .. I have seen more aggressive agenda warriors than you...thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed! --Gurubrahma (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurubrahma:, Thank you so much :-) --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for keeping an eye on the page. If you see any confirmed accounts vandalizing the page or violating BLP, ping me and I'll block and/or raise the protection level as soon as possible. If I'm not around try Titodutta, RegentsPark, utcursch or WP:RFPP and point them to the WT:INB to bring them up to speed. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I Am watchful --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious history Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Manoj Ranjan Yadav, Please elaborate, unable to identify context --Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration at Naveen Bawa with the author immediately removing a valid PROD template . However, the guidance does say :

" Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. "

However I have now tagged it for AfD here where you may or may not wish to comment. In the meantime, it might be prudent to remove the warning given to Helpful14 as it does seem inconsistent with the guidance. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Warning removed now, I Will comment on AFD, No problem --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir/Madam

I changed the references of all the data provided and removed the "Bollywood Bindass" and "IMDB" references. Then why you reverted my this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful14 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Helpful14 I reverted to restore PROD template which you deleted with your edits, however the article has gone to AFD now so let the community decide.. you are free to re-add your sources and improve the article...thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

explain the grounds on the basis of which Altnews.in is not a RS.I'm ambivalent about Wire but will seek a clarification.∯WBG^converse 16:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Scroll, opindia, thewire, the print, postcardnews and altnews should not be considered reliable sources as all of them have either pro or anti-government biases. Altnews is a private company managed by a team of people who claim to verify news by in-house Technics and methodology... I find this questionable..moreover the neutrality of Altnews founder has been questioned for biases [1], [2], [ Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99, Sorry I do not find much/any pro-government bias in Altnews.in. It has been attributed to several times by reputed media-units, (as to fact-checking and the broader theme of fake news) and barring Arnab, I have not seen any criticism from mainstream-journalism.If you wish to debate this, either approach WP:RSN or noticeboard for India-related topics.best, ∯WBG^converse 17:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, isn't this questionable? -->> [[3], [4] --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to opindia.com, I did not see a single point where they have debunked Prateek's debunking.At any case, the editorial utilisises selective filtering of Prateek's editorial comments.For one, I can easily bring several examples of debunked fake-news from right-wing-folks at AltNews, where he was quite mild.Also, opindia is self-described-ly biased.

As to the other one, anything that paints The Hindu, TOI et al to be all biased and anti-Modi, is worth not a meaningful expenditure of my time.

Overall, Prateek might not have much/any affection for BJP & it's associates and probably is center-left but given that his outlet has been heavily mentioned and relied upon by multiple mainstream media, it's clearly a RS, for our purpose. ∯WBG^converse 17:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, If your valuable and precious time permits you, kindly do bother to consider letting me know about some instances of the "multiple mainstream media" where altnews is being "heavily mentioned"... thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99, it's night over here and I'll be soon off to sleep.Will definitely mention by tomorrow.Best, ∯WBG^converse 17:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, No problem. it's night over here too, and while you sleep I will spend some of my time in finding out who is BJP and what is Modi... Since you have used both these words :-) --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Saw the thread and decided to jump in. Alt news can be considered a reliable secondary / tertiary source per wiki standards. They provide accurate sources for their work as is expected from a reliable media and already widely cited enough. As to allegations of Anti government Bias, that is an unproven and hard to prove comment. Cherry picking news items does not prove any BIAS.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. --Kennedy
— https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press

As For the OPINDIA, the lesser be talked about the better, It is run by RAHUL RAJ and is an RSS BJP mouthpiece and propaganda page. using a propaganda op-ed site to claim BIASNESS of a news site looks bizarre to me. If any of you wants to goto RSN you can but what I said above will be the outcome of it. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, thanks for chiming in:-) ∯WBG^converse 10:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, Winged Blades of Godric, I Am considering to take this case to RSN, Before that, if could any of you please tell me about "multiple mainstream media" mentioning Altnews as reliable source then I will appreciate it and can then analyze the situation with better perspective... Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray, Winged Blades of Godric, and Adamstraw99: I am not sure where this argument arises from but here are my 2 cents. This has been discussed in the past on one of the talk pages. As far as I see it, currently we are arguing over the validity of these sources based on our perceptions/personal likes and dislikes. The list of sources which can be considered in the gray area is considerable and we need some common reliable metric to evaluate them. Sometime ago I came across [a media fact check website]. AFAIK, it seems to be independently funded and has correctly represented the position of many such sources. For example, Scroll ([5]), The Wire ([6]), First Post ([7]) is mentioned to be usually factual but with a left-center bias. Similarly, Swarjaya ([8]) is stated to be another factual source but with right-center bias. However, other news websites like OpIndia, Altnews, PostCard.news, Caravan Magazine, Tehkla find no mention on this website and there might be good reasons for it. In my mind, there is a distinction between Scroll, The Wire, First Post, Swarjaya on one side and OpIndia, Altnews, PostCard.news, etc on the other. This distinction is primarily in the form of editorial overview which the first set of sources have and from established journalists. It is unclear if the second set of sources have the same overview apart from the commitments they state on their websites (both Rahul Raj and Pratik Sinha are not primarily journalists). However, their factual reporting which is stated as High (for the first set) is just one aspect of this issue. The other issue is that even if we just consider the first set of sources, there is the issue of bias which is problematic from the point of view that it can alter the way some factual information is presented. The website I refer to here makes mention of this and thus cautions one to be careful while referring to such sources. In comparison, if we take Times Of India ([9]), Indian Express ([10]), is placed as factual and minimal amount of bias. IMO, the use of sources which seem to have left/right bias should be used with care in criticism/controversial sections of articles and is best avoided. But this discussion is much bigger than this and a more detailed evaluation at WP:RSN is required. I think we must look at all such sources with care at the WP:RSN discussion and measure them with the same yardstick rather than personal perceptions/like/dislikes. If others have similar "independent" metrics which place describes each of these sources then it would be great. Here, I would request that we need to look at fact-checkers as metrics not mere mention of one in other mainstream sources. (things are more complicated then they appear. For example, OpIndia was acquired by Swarjaya but is treated as a separate entity. Similarly, Scroll/TheWire at times pickup news from lesser known websites or each other and run with them but it is unclear if they ever verified their sources and in the past have had to retract them but give this illusion of multiple sources stating the same thing) Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80:, Thanks for your valuable inputs... I think all these websites have some issues to be treated as RS -->>> Scroll, opindia, thewire, thequint, the print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog, nationalherald and altnews etc. I think none of them should be considered reliable sources as all of them have either pro or anti-government biases. My other concern is -->> They are not mainstream media, All of them are web based news sites with the main news consumers limited to internet users and more specifically social media users.-- Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I have a problem with using the phrase "All of them" Due to the phrase गेहूं के साथ साथ घुन भी पिसता है. Lets not use that phrase and generalize sources. I agree with several points raised by Burger and disagree with more.

1. Alt News : Burger is right when he says, AltNews are not journalists. I am not dead supporter of Altnews. I am happy if someone replaces altnews with another better source, simply because their data points are verifiable and plenty other sources saying the same exists. AFAIK and whatever articles of AltNews I have read, Their sources are properly referenced. Yet to find 1 single article that is fake or data incorrect. As long as AltNews is used to back up a data fact, I am ok with using it as a reliable source. (because that particular fact is already verifiable, and can also be attributed to primary sources). Alt news articles also contain some commentary on the facts, and obviously that commentary should not be used in the articles.
2. Op India, is heavily biased propaganda site owned by RSS-BJP using fake datapoints and are an absolute NO NO in wiki articles. this has been exposed many times. a "propaganda site" is not reliable. period.
3. The Wire is a reliable journalistic news website. Their explosive articles have been challenged in courts and they stayed with their data points, and the courts agreed with their claims that their facts were not made up and based on documentary evidence.

I am not so sure about scroll or others. I would best not comment on them. The above is an overview. Now if there is any specific controversial piece of data, that is disputed between these sources. we should probably look at it at its own merits. If there is a piece of commentary in any of these sources, None of it should be added in the wiki article.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

honestly tell all you experienced editors that current political situation in India is politically very hateful and things are going to get only worse until April-May 2019 for obvious reasons you know :-) ... So, I Am very disturbed to see use of these websites as reliable sources because IMHO they are giving space for POV Pushing, which I Am committed to counter at any cost - As its my primary objective to this Wikipedia space in online world.. I Really do not know what to do next... I Am so helpless :-( ... help and advice seeking ping to @Abecedare: .. Thanks -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, AFAIK wikipedia is not having elections. if someone wants to make an article a right vs left battle ground they would do so at their own peril. Obviously someone getting into a dispute on the basis of a propaganda site or a commentary from any of the above sites will have to eat the humble pie. Cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, I think Abecedare is MIA, So i have decided to go the RSN way...posted at RSN Here ... lets have the community debate this... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:, This is not about Altnews only. I Find all these websites problematic and they are bound to bring trouble and edit warring/pov pushing and all... So, I have raised them collectively at RSN (not sure if its allowed) but thanks for your valuable inputs... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to use all of them as a source for a fact. As I said on the RSN, there is a way to proceed on this issue, bunching is not one of them. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pankaja Munde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll, opindia, thewire, thequint, the print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog, nationalherald and altnews etc. should not be considered reliable sources as all of them have either pro or anti-government biases. They are not mainstream media, All of them are web based news sites with the main news consumers limited to internet users and more specifically social media users. Altnews is a private company managed by a team of people who claim to verify news by in-house Techniques and methodology... I find this questionable..moreover the neutrality of Altnews founder has been questioned for biases [11], [12], [ Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

isn't this questionable? -->> [[13], [14] --Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamstraw99! You created a thread called Format infobox error at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam 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/Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (2nd nomination) 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adamstraw99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi Adamstraw99! You created a thread called Why nobody is reviewing my new article? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need rollback rights to be able to restore old versions. You just need to turn on Twinkle. It is in Preferences under "Gadgets" or something. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) WP:Twinkle is a must have tool. I cannot imagine being able to maintain the articles I edit without it. although I have Rollback i rarely use it. You dont get to add a edit summary in rollback. It is only effectively used to mass revert a vandal after he is blocked. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I did the things in preferences under gadgets and enabled it, not sure how to use it so when tried to revert first edit in RSS it went smoothly, but in second self revert it said cannot be done and needs to be done manually, I Am too old fashioned to use these tools but i guess will learn by and by.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]