User talk:Garudam/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitin Mehta

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Bhutala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turushka. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garudam]. It seems to be part of the reason JJB was topic banned. I am NOT saying you are wrong, just that I don't understand it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:Well, yeah, Doug. And by JJB (JJP?), I guess you meant JingJongPascal? Correct me if I’m wrong. To put it briefly, the argument was about the removal of inline and AfD templates, which are some of the reasons they are now topic-banned. Garudam ^Talk! 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::JJP. I don't understand the contradictory template. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Here on Talk:List of wars involving Magadha#Gupta_Empire, I explained how scholars disagree on the Guptas' connection to Magadha. The contradictory template was added because it conflicted with the Origin of the Gupta dynasty. Garudam ^Talk! 15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks Doug Weller talk 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't file reports at SPI free-form. Instead, follow the instructions at WP:SPI on filing a report. You made a complete mess of the above report, some of which I've fixed, but still isn't structurally correct. I'll let a clerk deal with it. Also, we don't do CUs of IPs, so don't request them (I removed that report completely), and we also don't block IPs unless they've edited recently. The two you included haven't edited in a long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Garudam. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your draftification of Arab conquest of Kaikan because the article was created in 2021. Article that are not new (within about 90 days of publishing) should not be draftified without prior consensus at Articles for deletion, per the result of this request for comments. In the future, please check that an article is new before moving it to the draft space. SilverLocust 💬 23:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:Oh, well yeah I should have gone through that comment before boldly moving the article into draftspace. Happy editing. Garudam^Talk! 23:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

::@Garudam, I have reversed your draftifications of Seige of Mandalgarh, Seige of Ajmer and Siege of Kampili for the exact same reason given by @SilverLocust. Why did you draftify those articles when you had been advised by SilverLocust that there was community consensus that it shouldn't happen to articles greater than 90 days in age? TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Garudam,

Please do not tag old drafts early for CSD G13. They aren't eligible for G13 until six months from the date and time of the last human edit. Now, we need to wait until May 30th before this draft is eligible for G13 again.

And pages aren't eligible for CSD G5 unless they have been created after the sockmaster has been blocked. It's complicated, it's about block evasion and you need to see who the sockmaster is, when they were blocked, when the sockpuppet account was created, when the draft or article was created, etc., it's best to let the SPI clerks or checkusers tag pages that are eligible for CSD G5.

Thank you for your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have reversed the draftification as the article was older than 90 days in age when Garudam draftified it. It should be taken to AFD if editors believe it doesn't meet notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Where are you getting 40% close phrasing from? [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Tanori%27s_Raid Earwig's Copyvio Detector] says 1% to me. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe do via copy vio run from this [https://www.militarymuseum.org/1stNatCavCV.html source] or use turnitin, however I do get this result without even doing it. Garuda ^Talk! 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't showing for me until I added that source. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Garudam, please do not add {{TL|DEFAULTSORT}} to articles where it is not needed; from that template page, "{{tq|It is not necessary to use DEFAULTSORT at all if the article or page should be alphabetized according to its title (which is true for most articles)}}". Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:I see. Thanks for the clarification. Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Garudam, I have edited Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind. Can you please accept the draft and move it to article Mainspace? Please let me know if further modifications are needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Garudam please vote for move on Talk:Lingayatism#Requested move 14 December 2024. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

:Bhanugupta

::added a link pointing to Arjun

:Kingdom of Valabhi

::added a link pointing to Arjun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

|}

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Garudam. Thank you for your work on S. R. Goyal. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice work}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|North8000}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Appreciate it, full of gratitudes! Garuda ^Talk! 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Garudam,

1) I am a good faith editor whose start on Wikipedia might have been not that good but I am getting better and now editing the space in good faith.

2) The enforcement started as a retaliation as mentioned by me in the discussion here.

3) I have edited on Wikipedia and in the past month, we can not find a single instance where I indulged in vandalism or POV pushes as mentioned in the enforcement.

I request you to Kindly share your opinion in the discussion

Note: I am currently undergoing my semester exams in university till 15th jan, might not respond swiftly. I respect your fair-mindedness and have a good faith that you will take side of Justice.

Thank You ! PPicazHist (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:I understand your concern PPicazHist, but I don't think I can do much there as administrators have already proposed their decision and my opinion wouldn't make any difference. I would suggest you to comply with their decision. You can further ask your queries to any uninvolved Admin or contact me through my e-mail & discord as I'm not proactive on Wikipedia these days. Regards, Garuda ^Talk! 11:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :History of India. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This is getting tirelessly disruptive. You removed the warning template from your own talk page. And your edit warring. Could you stop? I’ve also replied on the talk page. I would rather show that I took the time to try to work with you before I take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but if your just gonna act like the problem doesn’t exist(removing your warning template), that’s only going to cause more issues for you here. And if I don’t get any response at all, than I suppose I don’t have any choice than. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:I’ll be stepping back, as I was already considering taking a break. I had warned you not to request the removal of protection while the discussion was ongoing. Regardless, I’m confident we’ll find a way to resolve this issue effectively. Garuda ^Talk! 14:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::You warned me? First of all, I didn’t even request to remove page protection! I already mentioned this in the talk page which it seems you’ve seldom read. That was on someone else. Also, what gives you the right to edit war even if I did request to remove page protection? Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

|}

Hi Garudam. Thank you for your work on Battle of Duimunisila. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed day!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|SunDawn}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bhutala (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you struck out this peer review nomination with the comment 'Blocked sock', but User:GtAM6 isn't currently blocked, and I couldn't find any past block logs for them. Could you please clarify why you made that change? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tiipu. However I must say that they're not blocked yet but confirmed to each other. Garuda ^Talk! 13:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello brother! PWC786 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Why did you reverted my reference of book on Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress page without giving any reason?

:Please guide me PWC786 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::You don't cite references in the reflist template rather cite after the content body. See WP:REF. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::ok thank you and thanks again that you deleted his provoking text. PWC786 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You can revert such comments by yourself if you feel it's a personal attack and please resolve the issue in a calm and dignified manner. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will 👍 PWC786 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hey, I was looking at User talk:PWC786, I don't think all of the warnings there are warranted. Please refrain from overzealous warning to the point of biting newbies. Sohom (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:I see. However, note that they are editing around WP:ARBIPA, which, of course, falls under the contentious topic area. Moreover I didn't even warn them for their first poor addition; instead, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PWC786#c-Garudam-20250127131200-Welcome! welcomed] them for it. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Right, let me be a bit more direct, can you explain which part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Army&diff=1273230718&oldid=1271505982 this edit] required a warning with the following text:

::{{tq| You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pakistan Army.}}

::Also, editing in a contentious topic area does not give you, an experienced editor the right to forget/sidestep a core guideline as you've done here. Sohom (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You're right. The use of uw-unsourced4 was unwarranted; uw-delete1 should have been used instead if necessary. I have promptly retracted my warning [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PWC786&diff=prev&oldid=1273527747]. – Garuda ^Talk! 20:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Religion in Myanmar 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; read about 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. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is a revenge warning, and no, my reverts were far from WP:3RR violation, I didn't do more than 3 reverts, self reverts shouldn't be in your equation. You must immediately retract your warning. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Garudam, you’ve reverted 5 times. Out of those, 4 were mine & 1 was yours. Which is completely a violation of WP:3RR — Cerium4B—Talk? • 12:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, see WP:3RRNO. Consider retracting your warning above. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

|}

{{Clear}}

Hi Garudam, inviting you to create 'History of Varanasi' page and add more contents into it. Notatall00 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Later, I'm not creating articles any time soon. – Garuda ^Talk! 07:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::ok.. but Varanasi needs long history explained as per it's importance. Even prayagraj has but not Varanasi. Notatall00 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Hey @{{u|Garudam}}, I was thinking of starting articles on hunnic wars, but it's hard to analyse the sources for me so I later dropped the idea. Would you please work on it? You have been actively working on many Gupta related articles so I thought you should create these articles. Mr.Hanes File:Speech bubble icon.svg Talk 11:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:The thing is I'm currently busy irl and might not work on any article these days, you are free to work on the topic or I'd think about it in a month or two. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The articles need to be involve the predecessor states aswell. THE SSS 2 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:For that you have to establish notability, refer WP:NLIST. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Battle of Bharali (1615)/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Battle of Bharali (1615) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Matarisvan -- Matarisvan (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi Garudam, I just wanted to let you know that I closed this discussion as delete shortly after you relisted it. I don't think there is any reason to prolong the discussion, after a number of participants unanimously supported deletion. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Ah, that's alright, @Eddie891. You did it for good. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 17:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi Garudam, Sorry for reverting your edits but there's some obvious sockpuppetry and a desperate attempt to get the article deleted. They still haven't addressed the sources I've shared multiple times in my comments. EmilyR34 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I checked, the IP isn't a blocked sock, please refrain from calling one; please see WP:INVOLVED. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 15:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The article Hans T. Bakker you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Hans T. Bakker for reasons why Talk:Hans T. Bakker/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The article S. R. Goyal you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:S. R. Goyal for reasons why Talk:S. R. Goyal/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The article Battle of Mandalgarh you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Mandalgarh for reasons why Talk:Battle of Mandalgarh/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello, you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramayana: Part 1 (2nd nomination) as Draftify. Please consider undoing your close and leaving that AfD close to an administrator, this being a second nomination and not an easy close. At least, please kindly take measures to relist the discussion. We have now 3 K and 3 Draft (and 1 R - the nominator), unless I am mistaken. And while I am not fiercely opposed to Draft myself, I do not think that it is, as you say in your closing statement, a clear TOOSOON case, given the arguments presented. We're talking about the most expensive production EVER in one of the most important film industries in the world. Thank you!-Mushy Yank. 23:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hello again, without reply from you, I took the page to Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_February_27#Ramayana:_Part_1. Thank you for your understanding. -Mushy Yank. 14:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, somehow I didn't get the ping. Even if I want to overturn my closure, I don't think it could have been undone. You can proceed to do a deletion review. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 15:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the reply! -Mushy Yank. 15:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Please clarify your recent draftifications [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siege_of_Aligarh_(1760)][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdus_Samad%27s_expedition_against_Jats]. I don't think it lacks sources. Mr.Hanes File:Speech bubble icon.svg Talk 18:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Please cite more of putative sources and then submit for review. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 14:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Garudam, the sources in both articles look reliable to me. I'm going to move them back to mainspace. If you disagree with that decision please take it to AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

charlotte ^👸♥ 22:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Curious why this was relisted given that there is a clear consensus to delete. CNMall41 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:While the latter !votes were in coherent with deletion, the others have opined for draftify. I guess another relist was warranted. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 18:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Which votes were draftify? There was the nomination to delete as well as five experienced editors who voted to delete and only one who voted keep. Note that one of the delete votes also provided a rebuttal to the keep vote. Still not seeing why it was warranted but hopefully you can clarify for me. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@CNMall41 I usually don't relist if there are more than five coherent participants, and I'll continue to follow that in the future. However, in this case, two of the deletionists suggested draftifying, so if another relist could gather more draftify !votes, it might be worth it. That's my rationale. You're welcome to suggest me, would definitely heed to your advice. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I would suggest stepping back from non-admin closures (including relists), unless they are clear cut. An admin just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nitin_Mehta closed] this which is the right call. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Noting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_February_27#Ramayana:_Part_1 this] which was also likely not a good close although I endorsed as I don't think there was likely another outcome that would have come from relisting (its more of a procedural issue which is being noted by some in the discussion, including the filer). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with this as well. This should have been an admin close. My close was rushed, but considering WP:SNOW, it might have been justified. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The article Amrakarddava you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Amrakarddava for reasons why Talk:Amrakarddava/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Hello, Garudam,

Please do not list AFD discussions where there is a clear outcome. I just saw two AFDs that were relisted even though the only arguments were for Deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitin Mehta and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virendra Sachdeva). This is an AFD discussion that an admin can clearly close so even if it's time has "expired", please do not relist it to sit for another week. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:You're right, Liz. The relisting of both AfDs could have been avoided. Anyway, I heeded your advice. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, don't be tired. There are two contradictory and controversial things in the Persepolis club article.

One is that Persepolis has that record in 24 games in Asian competitions.

And also the statistics of Persepolis team fans are given unrealistically. Because there is no evidence that this team has 40 million fans. 123samouel (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please use {{cn}} template if it's not supported by sources, and then take your concerns at the talk page. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 15:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Can you do it? 123samouel (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@123samouel, simply place {{cn}} after the content, if there's no citation to support the claim. Use {{fv}} in case the cited sources don't attest to the contents. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Garudam, I am thinking of using these websites as source material: "Star Wars: Gen Z Has Turned Revenge of the Sith Into a Cult Classic" https://www.cbr.com/star-wars-gen-z-turned-revenge-of-the-sith-into-cult-classic/ , "Have Younger “Star Wars” Fans Made “Revenge of the Sith” a Cult Classic?" https://insidethemagic.net/2020/01/revenge-of-the-sith-cult-classic-ro1/#google_vignette — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzSolo (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:@DzSolo, it's certainly a good approach. However I'm not sure if both of these sources pass WP:RS, so please make sure to verify their reliability at WP:RSN before citing the sources. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 21:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Garudam. After reviewing your request, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGarudam enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Creations by banned or blocked users -- must they always be speedily deleted per WP:G5?. Thank you. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The articles by 971asif that you tagged look like useful articles we might want to keep. At the same time, they were clearly created by a banned or blocked user. I have temporarily removed your speedy deletion tags pending clarification of the question I raised on the noticeboard.

Note that I'm not complaining about anything you've done, just raising a question about the rules.A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

|}

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Dhanyaviṣṇu/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Dhanyaviṣṇu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The article Amrakarddava you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Amrakarddava for reasons why Talk:Amrakarddava/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The article Goparaja you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Goparaja for reasons why Talk:Goparaja/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my edit on an archeological site in northern Pakistan a month ago, the word "Rani" isn't exclusive to hindi as both hindi and Urdu are Indo Aryan languages derived from Sanskrit and prakrit and have many words which are "Cognates" such as "stan" of Urdu to "Sthan" of Hindi, the "Rani is a Hindi word" was a vandalism which I had reverted and the original article correctly mentioned it as an "urdu" word, would love to hear back <3 Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:That's not what the cited source says [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rani], familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVANDAL as well; before passing the "vandalism" tag. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you removed my edit regarding the Aulikara migration. My edit stated:

• "They settled in various localities in Western India after having migrated from the Punjab, where they had fought with Alexander on the lower banks of the Ravi River. Their original home was in Jhang District, Pakistan which is supported by the fact that the legend on some Malava coins found in Rajasthan reads from right to left, as in Kharosthi script, which was prevalent in the Punjab and the northwest from very early times.{{cite book |last=Sharma |first=Tej Ram |title=Personal and Geographical Names in the Gupta Inscriptions |url=https://archive.org/details/personalgeograph00sharuoft/page/146/mode/2up |page=147 |year=1978 |publisher=Concept Publishing Company}}"

You asked me to reach out and ask why you removed it. Could you please clarify the reason? The edit was backed by a reliable source.

Thank you. Eltabar243 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Eltabar243: The page has been recently plagued by sockfarms & caste-crufts, please start a discussion regarding their origins on the talk page; like we have a prolonged discussion on Talk: Gupta Empire#Undue origins?. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

The article Dhanyaviṣṇu you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Dhanyaviṣṇu for reasons why Talk:Dhanyaviṣṇu/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, regardless of how your AN thread works out, some tips for avoiding close paraphrasing:

• A rule of thumb I often use in my own work, where I am sometimes close to certain that the person I am citing will read it (that is, I know the CLOP will be noticed by the original author, who is someone I know personally, embarrassing the hell out of me and enraging the hell out of them - the stakes are high, as far as CLOP goes!): imagine that you are the writer you're paraphrasing. Would you recognize your writing? Would you think "hm, didn't I write something like that?" If yes, it's too close.
• Try reading the source, thinking of what you want to say, closing the source, and writing. Don't look back at the source until you're done and you need to check whether you paraphrased too closely.
• What is the idea that you want to take from the source? Summarize the idea, not the sentences.
• If you feel like you need to summarize the sentences, you're probably paraphrasing too closely.
• Sometimes you've got a sentence that says a fact you need and there aren't really any other reasonable ways to say it. That's fine, you don't need to tie yourself into knots to avoid CLOP.

But most importantly, in your case: don't write about topics that don't have enough sources to write about them. CLOP in your case looks like it's something of a byproduct of writing articles on battles that aren't actually notable, so there isn't that much to say, so you get stuck rephrasing what one historian has said. That's almost inevitably going to lead to problems. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Ah @Asilvering, thanks for this advice, which I'd heed immensely. My methodology of writing articles or phrases would certainly won't disappoint anyone. To the less SIGCOV topics---yes from now on, I'd avoid messing around on less covered MILHIST topic and follow your crux rule. Thanks a million :) – Garuda ^Talk! 17:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The article Turbak's invasion of Assam you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Turbak's invasion of Assam for reasons why Talk:Turbak's invasion of Assam/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Yue -- Yue (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Battle of Bhutala/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Battle of Bhutala you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Battle of Devarakonda you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Devarakonda for reasons why Talk:Battle of Devarakonda/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Battle of Bhutala you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Bhutala for reasons why Talk:Battle of Bhutala/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Battle of Bharali (1615) you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Bharali (1615) for reasons why Talk:Battle of Bharali (1615)/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Matarisvan -- Matarisvan (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)