User talk:Ganesha811#top

{{User QAIbox

| image = Coltsfoot, Tegernsee.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Thank you today for Anna Filosofova, about "an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Nadezhda Stasova. Among other things, Filosofova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. She outlived her colleagues and became widely acclaimed after the 1905 Russian Revolution."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks Gerda! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Nice selection! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: Thank you! - Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello ...please help me how to translate Wikipedia articles from English to siswati. Where do I start. --GD6 Mapri (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:You can use Wikipedia:Content translation tool - follow the guidelines there. Good luck! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your RfC closure. I’m wondering if you could expand on how you found a consensus toward inclusion? Several editors (like Isaidnoway) opposing argued that RS only mentioned rumors and did not report relationships with men as fact. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sure. I felt that those arguments were addressed by editors in favor of inclusion, and structured my close to (hopefully) make clear that we should not present relationships with men/homosexuality as a fact, but rather focus on what reliable sources do say ("widespread belief" etc) and not make any definitive statements in Wikipedia's voice. I can adjust the wording if necessary to make this crystal clear. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for explaining. I’m newer to RfC’s and I’m trying to learn how consensus is assessed. I look forward to seeing if the closure is accepted or challenged. In either case, thank you for moving things forward! Dw31415 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Some discussions are pretty easy to close, whether because there's an overwhelming majority in favor of one view or because the policy is clear and someone started an RfC just to put something "on the record", so to speak. Even when there's an overwhelming majority, it's worth double-checking to make sure there wasn't canvassing, a lot of SPA involvement, or a bunch of folks simply ignoring policy because they don't like it. This closure was a harder one and I read it a few times before deciding where consensus lay. Sometimes, there are several relevant policies and editors debate which should take priority over the other. The key is to remember that it's not a vote, and the final consensus can be complex; even a yes/no include/exclude, like we had here, can come with caveats. If someone asked "Is there consensus to add {{tq|Sultan Qaboos was gay}} to the article?", the answer would be "100% no, that's way beyond the consensus." —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::For an example of a difficult discussion where consensus was tough to gauge (because of competing policy priorities), check out this discussion from last year. I think Ingenuity did a great job there as closer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: Reading this with interest: could you take a look at the Erik Satie RfC, just look? I'd be interested in your evaluation of arguments, and will wait until it's closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: ... which is now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I really don't want to wade into the 20 year battle over infoboxes, but I will say that I think this is an area where as there is no universal policy, it's simply a matter of editorial judgment and personal opinion, and therefore the count of !votes would weigh more heavily when assessing consensus. I also would discount comments that assert ownership over the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I don't agree that there was a 20 years battle. There were years without "battle" (2018, 2019). When a consensus was found for Mozart (Feb 2023), I seriously hoped that would be the end of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Erik Satie --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I felt disappointed to see this RfC conclude in favor of inclusion, despite all three previous RfCs leaning toward exclusion—and despite that most exclusion arguments were strong, policy-based, and greater in number.

Even though I some how understand the intent behind the consensus summary, I believe the conclusion to "include" deserves re-evaluation, as it downplays valid and policy-based concerns raised throughout the RfC. Multiple editors presented strong arguments for exclusion rooted in core Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RSUW, and the continuing relevance of respecting personal privacy even posthumously—a principle that, while not strictly WP:BLP anymore, still carries ethical and editorial weight.

The cited sources offer little more than recycled rumors, often with vague attribution or secondhand claims. One even uses inflammatory and potentially defamatory language (“homosexual and vicious”), casting doubt on intent and neutrality. As several editors pointed out, no major obituary or scholarly publication (e.g., [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/sultan-qaboos-dead.html NYT], [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50902476 BBC], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/obituary-sultan-qaboos-bin-said Guardian], [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Qaboos-bin-Said Britannica]) considered these allegations significant enough to include, which raises the question of encyclopedic weight and relevance.

This is not about censorship or prudishness. It’s about maintaining high editorial standards, avoiding undue emphasis on unverified and potentially harmful content, and respecting a public figure’s lifelong decision to keep their private life private. Inclusion under these circumstances risks reducing Wikipedia’s credibility by giving prominence to salacious, speculative claims.

In light of the above and strong exclusion-based reasoning from multiple contributors, I believe the RfC outcome should favor exclusion.Itshrabkhan (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comment. I felt that the policy-based arguments against inclusion were not as strong as the policy-based arguments for inclusion, and that the strongest points brought up by those opposing inclusion were effectively countered. I am certainly in favor of maintaining high editorial standards and did my best to emphasize our responsibility to meet those standards (with sources of equally high quality) in my close. I'm happy to discuss this further. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::While I respect the effort to weigh both sides, I still believe that the exclusion arguments were not only stronger in number but also more grounded in key Wikipedia content policies like WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:UNDUE, and even WP:V in terms of how we treat claims—especially those rooted in speculation, regardless of the outlet that publishes them.

::Yes, The Times or similar publications may be generally reliable for reporting, but what they reported here are still claims, often framed around what “some believed” or “rumors that circulated.” These aren't concrete facts about the subject's life—they're reflections of public discourse, not verified events. Simply being mentioned in a reliable source doesn’t mean the claim itself meets the threshold for encyclopedic inclusion, especially when it concerns a deeply personal and speculative topic that the individual himself never confirmed.

::I’d also kindly encourage revisiting Archive 3, where many of these concerns were debated in depth. If time allows, reviewing all archives may help give more context to how editors have consistently approached this issue—largely favoring exclusion out of respect for quality, neutrality, and editorial integrity.

::Thanks again for being open to discuss. Itshrabkhan (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::An RfC with good participation (like the one I closed) would be more relevant than previous talk page discussion. As to the distinction between "claims" and "concrete facts", I think as long as Wikipedia only uses reliable sources and makes clear what exactly sources are reporting, the distinction is academic. Secondary sources don't break down into clear lists of "claims" vs "concrete facts" - they report reality in whatever manner they see fit, and Wikipedia summarizes their work. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::While I agree that a well-participated RfC carries weight, it should still be interpreted in light of Wikipedia’s core content policies, not just participation levels. Policies assures that inclusion should depend not only on sourcing but on what kind of content is being sourced. Reliable sources may report public discourse or rumors, but Wikipedia is not obligated to repeat them unless they meet the threshold for encyclopedic relevance and weight. In this case, we’re dealing with speculative content, not a well-documented aspect of the subject’s legacy.

::::I’d also stress that previous RfCs and talk page discussions consistently leaned toward exclusion for these same reasons. A new RfC shouldn't override that unless the nature of the sources has meaningfully changed—which I don't believe it has. Itshrabkhan (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Since there’s been no further response from you, and the sources used in the current text appear clearly to rely on rumor and gossip, I’ve made some changes. [https://books.google.com.om/books?id=H3oYDAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Source 1] quotes from a source you previously removed as unreliable ([https://books.google.com.om/books?id=AwbnDAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y source 4]); [https://books.google.be/books?id=e0YhBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y source 2] is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE; [https://books.google.com.om/books?id=PCm45OHcDSoC&redir_esc=y source 3] explicitly states that these are rumors; and [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sultan-qaboos-bin-said-of-oman-obituary-nw33q0tg8 source 5] appears to recycle the same claims from these unreliable sources. Given these issues, I’ve restored the paragraph to its previous version for now—based on policy concerns and until a clearer consensus is reached on what should be included. Itshrabkhan (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Your opinion isn't grounds to overturn the RfC and unilaterally restore a prior version. The version you restored is much more vague and inappropriately "winks" at homosexuality without being clear about what is implied. That is not good encyclopedic writing. Specific concerns about wording and sourcing can and should be discussed on the talk page as I said in the close, but the RfC found that there was consensus to include this information in some way. If you have an issue with the RfC as a whole, and not just with wording/sourcing, please take it up at the appropriate forum - I think we are unlikely to persuade one another here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  --NAJI SALIH (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:What is your question? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abused power. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Giraffer

|Goldsztajn}}

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Cyclonebiskit

|Nohat

|Someguy1221

}}

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 0xDeadbeef

File:Oversight logo.png Oversighter changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GB fan

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Moneytrees

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}} {{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello. You may or may not remember me from when I nominated the Texas and Pacific 610 page as a good article, and you reviewed it, which I am still grateful.

A few months ago, I nominated another page, Southern Railway 4501, and I was originally hesitant in pestering you or any other user to review it, but since some time has passed, and I haven’t seen a single message about that, I’m now wondering if you could look at it. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I appreciate you thinking of me! I'll take a quick look but I doubt I'll have time to conduct a review soon, unfortunately. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::No worries. I myself have been taking a short break from Wikipedia in favor of other things. If I have to wait a little longer of the 4501 page to get reviewed, I don’t mind. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You closed Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC_on_change_of_name as a "snow close", but it had been running for five days and a rough count gives 58-21 against. Clearly there is a consensus against it, but is this really what WP:SNOW is for? jp×g🗯️ 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's not that there wasn't real support for some alternatives to "notability." There was. It wasn't a 90-1, ridiculously lopsided discussion. But there was absolutely no chance that there would be consensus for anything other than "notability". What's the point in keeping the discussion open when there's only one possible outcome, and that outcome is the status quo? If it had only been 24 hours, you might argue that counterarguments should be given time to have an effect. But given 5 days and a 58-21 rough count, where the 21 are divided among several options and there is no clear policy reason to favor any of them - that's a snow close in my book. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it was the right way to close. It was a nice discussion and there are opinions worth considering. I would have appreciated if the close included a summary of arguments made by editors and how strong were they.

::To suggest that "no, there's no way a name change can happen" is not as nice. It was ultimately a bike-shedding discussion and I'm slightly surprised that you want policy-based reasoning from editors. To be clear, was there any policy reason to keep the original name? If we really want to go down that route, then I guess WP:5P5 is in support of a name change?

::Anyways, the way the RfC is structured makes it hard to pass. I had given thought into putting out an alternate proposal in a different section, but I didn't have the time to do it. I am surprised that it got closed down this early. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You're right, there's no policy reason to keep "notability" - what I meant is that I would not make a snow close when the "minority" argument is supported by policy and the "majority" argument is not, or has weaker policy support. That wasn't the case here - support for any of the options comes down to personal preference. I wasn't looking for policy-based reasoning. I do agree that a different RfC, perhaps focused on finding the best alternative to "notability" first and then proposing the change, might have better luck. Thanks for your feedback on the close. Getting these comments from two editors I respect is a sign that the close may have been too early. I don't think there's any point reopening it, but I'll bear the suggestions from you in mind for future closes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

hello, could you please help me to establish a Company wikipedia account? --Studio Mirage Limited (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, I'm afraid not. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, and should not be shared or used by organizations. If you wish to create a Wikipedia account and still identify your organization, you could use names like "CompanyX_Stefan" and "CompanyX_Pooja". Your current username is in violation of our username policy. I suggest abandoning this account and creating a new one with an appropriate name. I'd also recommend reading over our COI guide to learn how to edit about an organization you work for - in summary, disclose your affiliation and avoid editing pages related to your workplace directly. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

how do I create my own Wikipedia page? --Jattamensah (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! It's not recommended to create a page about yourself. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

how can people see my article --Vandna sharma vv (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! It's not recommended to create a page about yourself. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

How can I do an article? --Dj unxxle.moos (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, so what the IP address got angry over was not even the billing block, but rather the cast list.

You can find the actual billing block at the end of this video here: https://x.com/wildcardcg/status/1914442772720796116

As you can see, Li Jun Li is not credited on the billing block, and neither is Buddy Guy. I have had that video checked with MikeAllen. If it is alright with you, I would like to take Li off the board now that we have found an official billing block. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:You don't need permission from me, but I'd post about it on the talk page section so that future editors can see the logic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Okay. Thanks for your time. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

how do I cut and add to existing text --Westotash (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What should I do If I have a lot of information about a Wikipedia page (relevant pdfs and websites) that isn't on the Wikipedia page and should be added but I don't have the time or knowledge to properly add it to the page? --Oracle778 (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:What page are you thinking of? The easiest solution would be to post the material on the talk page so future editors can make use of it. However I'm also happy to help support you learning to add the material yourself - we have some great guides like Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I was thinking the Microform page, It doesn't state anything about its usage during the 60s as a method for storing information by Nasa or other government entities. It also doesn't state anything about the advancements made in the technology regarding diazo microfilm copying or dry micro-picture printing. Also for the CBS laboratories page there is no mention of their work and research on microfilm during the 60s, Micro film was used extremely heavily by Nasa and the Cia during the space race. Oracle778 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It does actually state some stuff about it but It excludes an extremely late amount of information involving the subjects Oracle778 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, go ahead and post the material on the talk page, or links to it, and other editors may incorporate it. However, it's also worth reading over Wikipedia's guidelines on original research to make sure what you're sharing isn't new material. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary ones. If you feel comfortable, you can add content to the page directly yourself - that's always simplest. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon sir / ma

Please how do I get my artist statement posted on Wikipedia --Godswill Chima Artist (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)