Hello, Hölderlin2019, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
About this edit: Are you sure that Routledge is a non-academic publisher?
I agree that the reference is not primarily concerned with the main topic of the article, so it is not an ideal tertiary source about the ongoing "debate", but Olson is an academic scholar who is far from propagating "fringe crankery". Please read the passage from the source [1]. Olson 1) starts with the mainstream view, then 2) describes the Indus-Valley-to-Vedic theory, and finally 3) describes a third position that suggest "mutual cultural influence". However, only the second part was quoted (more or less verbatim), which makes it appear as if Olson defends the Indigenous Aryans bunk. The only thing Olson can be blamed for is that he portrays the dispute between the scholarly mainstream view and the ideologically motivated Indigenous Aryans "theory" as if these positions were on equal footing. I'll reinsert the source at the end of the paragraph, but leave the quoted text out, which was redundant anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salvador (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
If so, please identify those accounts. I find your editing patterns strange. You pop up on pages that you've never edited before only to revert me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you came to revert edits on those pages shortly after I did. Do you just happen to watchlist those two articles that you had never edited before? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recently visited the Kushner article because I wanted to read it. I was struck by the inappropriateness of the lede — as were several other editors. Rereading the Kushner article, I became curious as to whether or not you were generally prone to inserting policy-violating ot otherwise undue material in leads generally. I’ll note that the reverts I made were backed by multiple others in both articles. You should take care to avoid infusing your POV so nakedly into your editing. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DS alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You must completely refrain from editing in topics you evidently know nothing about, particularly given your recent history of being admonished for edit warring on articles on which discretionary sanctions are in place. My removing the ‘quote’ from the articles on Hinduism and homosexuality has nothing to do with my personal preferences, and everything to do with the fact that the quote in question appears nowhere in the actual text of the Rigveda. You are welcome to demonstrate to me where I am in error by linking to the *actual* passage in the running text of the Rigveda which contains the quote I removed, *or* to a scholarly work by a Sanskritist documenting the passage with a translation (you should start with Jamison & Brereton). If you cannot (and you won't be able to - it's actually a quote from an entirely unrelated document), the quote will remain out of the articles. Frankly, even the form of the quote being cited - Vikruti Evam Prakriti establishes that the quoter is unfamiliar with Sanskrit, since the syllabic r̥ is transliterated in two different ways, which is not an error a Sanskritist would make. To say nothing of the translation itself, which is off.
The statement I removed from the article mleccha misrepresents the source, which does not make anachronistic claims about whether or not ancient cultic practies meet the standards of *modern* Hindu practice. I've revised it to reflect the source. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See WP:IDHT and WP:DE especially when you make erroneous claims[2][3] even when the added sources are supporting the text. [4][5] Your reverts came after getting reverted over the same problem earlier and you were notified on your talk page about it and even after one other editor reverted you. Though it seems that you haven't read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would recommend you to read WP:RGW as well. Siddsg (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to link to the actual verse in the text of the Rig Veda, or provide an academic source from a Sanskritist, establishing the presence of the quote in the Rig Veda? I’m not righting great wrongs; I’m simply pointing out that there is no support whatsoever for the existence of this phrase in the Rig Veda in the academic literature dealing with the Rig Veda itself. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a source by a *Sanskritist*; that's a source on queer theory, etc., which does not make it a reliable source for claims about Sanskrit texts, especially since they themselves have not sourced the claim. Can you explain why this passage appears nowhere in the text of the Rigveda, and why it is not present in any of the academic sources on the Rig Veda, such as Witzel's, or Jamison & Brereton? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have no expertise in LGBT history by a long shot that's why they don't bother. But nonetheless, a simple google search shows me gazillions of reliable sources supporting the information so all you can do now is that you can read WP:OR. Siddsg (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that LGBT scholars who cannot read Sanskrit, and who make a claim about the existence of a passage that is not supported by any of the actual scholars on Sanskrit, are more reliable on translations of Sanskrit than the actual Sanskrit scholars themselves? Also, I don't understand why you're unwilling to seach the database yourself and show me where the verse occurs. I provided you with a link; it'd shut me up *very* quickly if you could just link to the actual verse which contains the text in question. Monier-Williamscategorically states that the words don't appear in the textHölderlin2019 (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Unwilling" because of WP:OR. If your position holds any merit then it should be easy for you to cite an "academic" source supporting it, just like you have been already told on the article's talk page. Siddsg (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just cited Monier-Williams, and Jamison and Brereton, which you claim aren't authoritative on Sanskrit or the Rig Veda because they have no expertise in LGBT history (!) - Bloomfield & Sastri also supports my position. I've mentioned all of these on the article's talk page. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is a purely WP:CIR issue then given you still don't understand the very basics. Noting that you are already engaging in blatant WP:CANVASSING[6][7][8] I am giving you a final warning now that if you engaged in further disruption then you will be reported accordingly. Siddsg (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it’s a CIR issue, but not in the way you might suspect. I’ve pinged a number of editors who specialize in India and Sanskrit-related articles; I have no idea what sort of stance they’ll take. I merely want their thoughts. Incidentally, I attach no importance whatsoever to your “warnings”. Do go ahead and “report” me, and keep in mind WP:Boomerang. I trust you’re enjoying the academic sourcing I’ve provided.
Now forgive me while I laugh my ass off at the levels of Dunning-Kruger irony present in you citing WP:CIR. Do refamiliarize yourself with this part: “ the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles“ — competence certainly is required, and, in this context, you unequivocally lack it. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm MRRaja001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Narayana without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MRRaja001(talk)09:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia
Hi Hölderlin2019! Thank you for your edits to Amrita. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Ambrosia into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for your contributions to Koothali Nair. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Komath. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Kalliat. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to C.V. Ranganathan. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Hello, Hölderlin2019. I noticed that your recent edit to C. P. Ramaswami Iyer added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)09:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Half the sources are already in the article; it's abundantly clear that you have no domain expertise whatsoever. Now, you could have asked, in the event I was somehow capable of typing hypertechnical descriptions in keeping with the literature, but you instead decided to wipe out my transposition of a summary from the K school of math. The obvious inference is that WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED.
Once I have the balance of the prose correct, I will re-add in the sources that already exist in the page. In the interim, find a workgroup competent on any of the germane matters and defer to them, since you clearly lack the competence to even understand what the article was initially saying. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let's stop by one of the India or Caste or Sanskrit workprojects and see what their take on you ignoring sources already in the article are in order to prevent a more comprehensive improvement of it are. Shall we? Can I expect an apology and complete rollback when you're done demonstrating that you can't even trace the initial claims to already linked sources? Why are you so demonstrably editing outside of your depth? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Hölderlin2019! Your additions to V. K. Krishna Menon have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page C. V. Viswanatha Sastri, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V. K. Krishna Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Casey.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Hölderlin2019. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Komath, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Hölderlin2019. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kalliat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
An article you recently created, V. N. Srinivasa Rao, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Maliner (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You already recreated it twice (once, twice) after it got draftified. Please do not repeatedly create the same page under variants of a title. Work on your draft, submit it to AfC, and then create redirects to it once it's in mainspace. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, V. n. Srinivasa Rao. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – V. N. Srinivasa Rao. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at V. N. Srinivasa Rao. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire piece has been my work throughout: I simply do no accomodate domain-inexpert patrollers who mark perfectly substantial drafts as needing to me moved to draftspace. Direct your criticisms there. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C. Sivaramamurti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FRAS.
Please take care to distinguish substantive edits from "test edits", so that I don't need to roll back your thoroughly inexplicable reversions. Thanks. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to condescend, please don't fail to miserably by demonstrating a total unfamiliarity with the actual sources in question. Rolled back. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start here. His father, Anantharama, was reputed to be one of the greatest Sanskrit scholars of the day, in the manner of his grandfather and great-grandfather, but initially could not afford to have him educated. Do you have a source for this? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick; it's a very well-documented story in the relevant literature.
Calamur Viravalli Runganatha Sastri was born on February 15, 1820, at Calamur Village in North Arcot District. With his thorough grounding in Vedic lore from his father Anantharama Sastri, he became an erudite Sanskrit scholar. Financial distress drove the family to Chittoor, the district headquarters. The father took an Ijara (contract as per Islamic finance) under the government. Unable to pay the lease amount, he landed in civil jail. Runganatha’s grandfather’s annual ceremony was nearing. Seeing his mother wailing, the 16-year-old-boy made an epoch-making decision that changed the course of his future. He went to the collector’s office, requested the release of his father for a day, offering to take his place in jail. Stunned, the collector let off both the father and son on the condition that they return after the ceremony. The pithrus, (spirits of departed ancestors according to Hindu philosophy) pleased, must have blessed young Runganatha. The rest of his story is history.
Are you planning to cite them in the article for other editors to verify or are you just going to keep adding content without citing sources? Btw, you need to cite the book with the relevant page number. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all the context I include is cited; I'm working concurrently on multiple related articles. What is helpful if for someone to chase up citations if they feel each line needs to be autistically individuated. What is unhelpful? When you make risibly false claims of OR and blank large sections of text not because you actually can sustain an authentic belief of rampaging OR, but because your particular peeve-meter overflows.
The latter tendency is destructive to Wikipedia. Both the sources I cite above I've already cited, by the way; they're not suddenly pulled out of nowhere defensively.
Any content that will be challenged will need inline citations, per WP:V. WP:BURDEN: the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Don't worry, as any unsourced content will be removed unless you provide a citation. You seem to be using a lot of sources from the WP:RAJ era, which are not accepted in Wikipedia. You working on creating multiple poorly sourced articles in a hurry is not Wikipedia's problem, as no one has a deadline here.
And according to your user page, if you are C. V. Karthikeyan, you have a conflict of interest in editing/creating these articles. I will be raising this issue with WP:COIN unless you disclose your conflict of interest and follow what's on WP:COI. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Any content that will be challenged will need inline citations, per WP:V. WP:BURDEN: the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Don't worry, as any unsourced content will be removed unless you provide a citation.
No, that has never been Wikipedia practice, and occurs almost exclusively where a strong suspicion exists that a user is wantonly introducing specious material. Given that that is demonstrably not the case here, any further talk from you about "will be removed" will find you directed to any of a number of admins I can think of who can and will reorient your priorities. Your instincts have already misfired really, really badly - you thought perfectly widely accepted information was not only unsupported OR, but PROMO to boot. Your prejudices are your own; if you attempt to inflict them on me... don't worry.
> You seem to be using a lot of sources from the WP:RAJ era, which are not accepted in Wikipedia
Well, if that *were* true, it'd still be nonsense, since an essay tucked away in Sitush's userpage is not authoritative. That said, I do look forward to your explanation of how, say:
There you go again; none of my multiple articles is poorly sourced. The only problem here is
you
, as I can continue to exhaustively demonstrate.
> And according to your user page, if you are C. V. Karthikeyan, you have a conflict of interest in editing/creating these articles. I will be raising this issue with
What's this? Lost on one front so trying to attack on another: I'm not CV Karthikeyan, and while your willingness to take a supreme court justice to task over nonexistent policy violations will remain an enduring moment of amusement for me, I've a better idea. You simply leave me alone, the way I leave you alone. If you think something *egregious* is taking place, ping someone like Joshua Jonathan to investigate. Give an orphan a cupcake when you show yourself erring, to yourself, again.
If you would prefer to harass me with
this weak of a hand
, well, have at it. I'll enjoy it, but consider what is in the interests of
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Aryama Sundaram, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My usage of my userpage to mock up a future article I may wish to create or enrich is perfectly legitimate, and appears to be the latest toothless episode in the nominator's extraordinary vendetta against me. ````
Further to my initial contestation, the idea that I use Wikipedia as a private webhost and am inactivity in actual mainspace is demonstrably bonkers. Is there a mechanism by which the designator can be sanctioned for malicious tagging? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aryama Sundaram
Per your request, evidence of your poorly formatted citation, as seen here. Do you see the mistakes you made?
If you are unduly traumatized by the airo/citer misfiring, a far more productive contribution to WP would be yes, for you to fix them yourself, if they offend you so. Certainly removing cited content that nobody contests the legitimacy of is the worst of all options. You REALLY shouldn’t do that.
It’s certainly considered disruptive editing to blank sections of legitimate text that WP relies on because you are dissatisfied with a bot’s clerical filings. I don’t need to read BATTLEGROUND or COMPETENCE; after all, I’m generally minding my own business and competently constructing enriching prose, while you think it apposite to remove text wholesale because the bot has cited the text in a manner repugnant to your frankly irrelevant sensibilities. I suggest you cease trying and failing to condescend, and leave me in peace unless you detect something actually problematic, as opposed to this present outbreak of Bureaucrat Syndrome, which will not be indulged. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sense in which he wasn't the founder is in deference to his boss, Nehru. No account of the genesis of the NAM has Menon as anything other than the instigator, as was commonly the case for Indian foreign relations matters while Nehru was PM. How familiar are you with the secondary literature? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Mocharla Ramachandra Rao
Hello Hölderlin2019,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mocharla Ramachandra Rao for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Advocata per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Advocata. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Could the ‘abusive’ use of the accounts be clarified? Advocata is not a sock of mine, being my wife’s account, , but I have occasionally inadvertently edited under it and vice versa since one doesn’t always check who is logged in. I have never denied this. I can’t recall ever using her account to create an “illusion of support”. For what? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is borderline comical: none of the admins at ANI bothered to engage or in any way indicated I had done anything wrong. Completely separately, I was accused of having two accounts at Checkuser, which is (effectively, at times) true. But that's perfectly allowable. Nobody has demonstrated any 'abusive use'; the extensive attempt to do so at ANI led to nothing there that I can see (please link me a diff if an admin commented and I missed it), and ultimately having two accounts in one household neither of which have done anything wrong triggers a ban not because of any abusiveness, per the explanations, but simply because there are two of them. No actual explanation of abusive anything is offered at checkuser either. I am perfectly happy to make sure that I am always and only logged into this account, instead of inadvertently my wife's, and can ask her to not follow me and decline to follow her edits as well. That will conclusively put an end to the unsubstantiated "abusive use of multiple accounts". Separately, if someone wants to make the case that either account has done something abusive not involving multiple accounts, well, that's what ANI is for. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Thetechie:. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 14:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Assuming you mean unblocked, that doesn't address the question; it just ignores it. I **don't deny** that I have inadvertently sometimes edited from my wife's account, whether you want to call her a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. I never have, and never have even sought to hide it; in fact have on occasion done things that make it ridiculously clear, like logging out of the "wrong" account and into the "right" one in quick succession from the same computer. What I am contesting is that the pattern of edits across the accounts was ever **abusive use of multiple accounts**. If someone wants to make a successful ANI case against me about inline references, fine, although the last one went nowhere. But neither of these accounts have attempted to create an illusion of support, popularity, additional upvotes, or anything else of the sort. Indeed, iirc at ANI it was noted that the accounts didn't seem to have actually ever interacted, let alone disrupt consensus, evading blocks or bans (neither of which I can recall ever having received even in the most limited fashion), misleading other users about consensus, or any of the other sensible things detailed as **abusive** use of multiple accounts.[reply]
Except of late, my edits generally haven't been particularly controversial, and even "now" aren't on topics where any of the abusive uses of socks are apposite. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inadvertently sometimes? So, you mean to say there were times you intentionally used your wife's account to edit? The last ANI thread didn't lead anywhere because none of the admins were interested in getting into the mess you created. ANI threads are typically archived after 3 days, just because no admin acted on it doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong.
But neither of these accounts have attempted to create an illusion of support, popularity, additional upvotes, or anything else of the sort. - Here is a diff showing how you used your wife's account to remove the CSD placed on your user page. You should have let an uninvolved editor or an admin make a decision on the CSD.
What's comical is how you have escaped so far using multiple accounts and still deny the fact that you have violated multiple policies. You have been using Wikipedia for 11 years now and should have known that multiple accounts need to be disclosed, even if you are using your wife's account inadvertently sometimes.
Here is an excerpt from the ANI thread - diff vs diff - Both editors seem to say that the unsourced content are easily available on the internet for verification or the editors need to be familiar with the topics they edit and should be competent enough to understand/edit it themselves. - Readers or editors cannot consult your talk page each time just because the content you added is easily verifiable using Google.
Koothali Nair was initially created by you on 17 September 2023 and was draftified. It was recreated by User:Advocata on 12 February 2024. Any particular reason your wife decided to write about the same topic you were interested in?
Except of late, my edits generally haven't been particularly controversial, and even "now" aren't on topics where any of the abusive uses of socks are apposite. - Almost all of your edits directly fall into WP:ARBIPAWP:GS/CASTE. You are just lucky none of the admins looked into your WP:OR edits till now.
No, that's not what I mean at all, and it requires an extreme bad faith misreading to think that. (1) Suppose someone says "I inadvertently sometimes lock my keys in my car" - do you really think that implies in ordinary English that sometimes they lock their keys in their car *intentionally*? (2) Frankly, why "would" I intentionally use my wife's account at all, given that I wasn't voting in polls, topic-banned, or anything else? What added malign bonus do you feel it provided? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create a mess; you did. In contrast to your strange hounding of me, I spent almost all my time writing and expanding high-quality, balanced articles. When you asked me questions about sources above on this very talk page, I immediately provided you with two different examples, including a direct screenshot of the text. You, in my eyes, seem to have leapt from random attack to random attack because the attacking is more important than anything else. At one point you also accused me of violating COI policies and of being an Indian High Court Justice incognito, simply because I was workshopping a draft of his page on my userpage, which you thought qualified for speedy deletion. (Bearing in mind that you did this with my opening the Mylapore clique page by characterizing it as an 'oligarchy' controlling networks of 'patronage', and working on a now-frozen rewrite of the C. P. Ramaswami Iyer page introducing a section on the WW2 famine that Travancore endured under his rule, as well as examining his draconian restrictions on freedom of the press, plus a fairly point-blank (pun unintended) discussion of his having state troops shoot dead at least 1,000 insurrectionist peasants. Also the minor matter of his alleged extramarital sexual liaisons with Lady Willingdon, the Maharani of Travancore, etc. That, and also expanding our treatment of the enactment of the draconian India-wide Rowlatt Act courtesy of, in part, C. V. Kumaraswami Sastri. All deeply strange things to do under the conspiracy theory that I was/am CV Karthikeyan. I don't remember how you pressed on the sourcing of any of those, although, as always, I am perfectly capable of line-marking the (usually academic) works I use. I seriously don't understand how you can contend to yourself that you're acting in good faith.
Anyway, we were discussing your speedying my userpage draft of CVK's article. That's one of the most extraordinary, aggressive things I've *seen* on Wikipedia, and I have indeed been around a very long time, as you've noted. At which point would you consider it reasonable for me to feel illegitimately harassed by you?
I'll continue on to note that I do have organic disputes about content with editors: someone wanted to speedy delete Mocharla Ramachandra Rao, for example, as you can see at its talk page; I defended it it, and the nomination was dismissed/the proponent did not elect to explain himself as invited. At one point I took a sourcing issue about whether the Rigveda contains a certain sentence construed to relate to LGBT matters to 3O and further.
I did not in fact do that (my wife *does* use her account from time to time), but I'll take the cop for it, since I did verbally express my astonishment that you would go so far as to try to speedy my userpage. I'll also note that in removing that notice, which was the unambiguously correct thing for anyone but her to do, she still said take it to ANI - an actual forum where allegations can be investigated.
I wanted to preserve some privacy, which over time fell apart. Yes, I should have declared it, but it seems incredible that you want me permanently banned because I didn't. This account originally began by contributing to the development of the Sanskrit corpus on wiktionary, which you can easily verify. But sure, I'm happy to admit that I've been sloppy (as has she, but I edit substantially more), although I equally happily think it incontrovertible that the multiple accounts have not been used abusively. Your own contentions about me were about this account and sourcing because you thought I was trying to scaffold a dynasty of randos onto Wiki, or something like that. Do you really deny that? Did my wife's account actually influence anything?
As I recall, when you asked for sources above, here, I provided them. In general they're in the actual articles. I have separately chastised you for your policy of meanness and vendetta, which is what it seems like, instead of genuinely trying to help and fixing any mistakes or lacunae, including ones of sourcing. The newish auto-cite thing is very useful, but it occasionally puts out gibberish for reasons I don't understand. I never dreamt that that would invite a witch-hunt that failed in its original, comprehensive attempt, and only succeeded because of an oversight by the checkuser who didn't bother to confirm abusiveness, being preoccupied with the blindly obvious truth of two accounts sharing a close relationship. I mean, good grief. If I had wanted to be a genuine evil sockmaster, I would have... done a far, far better job of it?
Yes. Why does it matter? I'm happy to discuss the reasons with certain trusted users, and can name a few. Again, the whole evil sock/meat thing was... in plain, open sight. Short of a notice how much more obvious could it have been? Do you think some additional force was nefariously and intentionally gained in the process? Really?
No, that just doesn't work as an explanation. I can happily explain why, and will, but I would like to see if you can steelman it, as a minimal token of good faith. [Leaving aside that the editing patterns look nothing like those of typical banned socks on caste/IndoPak articles.] Oh, the OR claim - your original claim - is still a dog that doesn't hunt. At no point in this did you ever stop and consider that if most of what I write is extremely well-sourced and rigorous and balanced, it might just be that the bits you take exception to for whatever reason are also.
ISaidNoWay actively noticed that some of my cites were misfiring, and instead of trying to *help*, elected to shout at me about it. Capitals00 raised a completely different issue about image rights, which is partially due to the new upload system, in a "parallel" case, but also one where in general, my images were legit enough, as is unsurprising given that they were mostly taken 70-120 years ago in a different country. Again, an offer of help would have been nice.
You know I've been around for more than a decade. In that time I've behaved nothing like an evil sockmaster. If anything, my most 'malign' behavior is usually backing up User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Ekdalian, etc., in contentious matters (though not, to my memory, with multiple accounts). But that I am happy to defend. Like, good grief. Do you really think your contribution in hounding me from Wikipedia made it better? Or are you simply happy that it somehow happened in the end, no matter whether or not the reason was what you contended, or, by its own terms, in spirit legitimate? I've ignored you for some time because I genuinely don't think you engaged with me in good faith. But here's a response, a sincere one, since you're *still* here, trying to... well, do what you do. Hölderlin2019 (talk)
There are 22 diffs with unsourced content on the ANI thread from the high-quality, balanced articles you have been creating. W.r.t the CSD, any admin would have deleted the content or at the very least, moved it to draft space.
Most of your response above is either lame or irrelevant to what you're being accused of. I believe you will be adding more paragraphs justifying your actions when they are all clear policy violations, so I am going to leave it to the admins to decide based on the multitude of evidence provided. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hölderlin2019. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:C.V. Ranganathan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello Hölderlin2019, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, V. N. Srinivasa Rao, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Smasongarrison}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Triplicane Six, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to The Hindu#Early years. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, V. C. Gopalratnam, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to V. C. Desikachariar. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.
As a term for the family of CV Runganada Sastri, this term fails verification in sources. Not a valid redirect since none of the sources refer to this family by this term. Fails WP:GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Vazhunnavar, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to Mannanar dynasty. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.
