User talk:Ritwik Deuba

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rakesh Ghimire (September 13)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Ritwik Deuba! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
Thanks for creating a draft!

Hello Ritwik Deuba, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Rakesh Ghimire to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~Liancetalk 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One aircraft, two aircraft etc

[edit]

Hello. The correct plural of aircraft is also aircraft. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. Duly noted. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome, and thank you for the nice reply! Happy editing, cheers, DBaK (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rakesh Ghimire (October 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Memer15151 were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I see just 1 reference, The Telegraph, that is independent of the subject. Per WP:GNG, you will need several reliable, in-depth, secondary sources that are independent of the subject before acceptance. Also, avoid external links in the body of the article. While the current sources can be kept, you need to find new sources to establish notability. Only capitalize the first letter of the first word in headers.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Ritwik Deuba! Your additions to Enforced disappearances in Pakistan 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, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is a copyright issue. I'll be careful. Thank you for the retractions/removals and explanations for the same. In the meanwhile, if there is an alternative solution to this, I shall take your recommendations. Once again, my sincerest thanks. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Armed Forces Day (Bangladesh) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rakesh Ghimire

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ritwik Deuba. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rakesh Ghimire, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rakesh Ghimire

[edit]

Hello, Ritwik Deuba. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Rakesh Ghimire".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combat losses of military aircraft

[edit]

I saw that you added a claimed combat loss to the CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder article. Combat losses of military aircraft are generally not included in lists of accidents and incidents unless they occur in singular or unusual circumstances. Such losses are normal for military equipment, so it is not practical or helpful from an encyclopedic perspective to list every single combat loss alongside non-combat incidents. - ZLEA T\C 06:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits Al Jazeera English

[edit]

Any materials you add on to Wikipedia needs to be supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Your recent edits didn't follow the said rules. Because citation you added are completely irrelevant and fraudulent - i suspect vandalism

If its a mistake - please be careful next time. You will be blocked for Wikipedia:Vandalism Cinaroot (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that these were not questionable sources on the perennial list. And I used sources from both countries. I'd certainly like to know about the "fraudulent" citations if you could list them. If these are to be moved to the Al Jazeera controversies article, I can understand the case (of irrelevance). Awaiting response.
Cheers,
Deuba Ritwik Deuba (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_English&diff=1290183982&oldid=1290174949
Existing Reference 1,6,7 has nothing to do with the content you added - False News (section)
How is this source [1] has anything to do with the content you added? i see no mention of Al Jazeera Cinaroot (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now I understand. In the third paragraph (of the Express Tribune article), there is no direct attribution to Al-Jazeera in the statements quoted. I understand that this is a context-based error. You are correct. Thank you.
Was the first half also incorrect? Is there a scope to improve anything there? Ritwik Deuba (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India–Turkey relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JNU. 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) 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

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:

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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize

[edit]

I have reverted your edit to Nobel Prize controversies; your addition was, in mine opinion, out of the range of the article, which is not about controversial nominations. Also, you removed the short description, put an irrelevant cite at the head of the page, and the section you added was far too large. If you disagree with this, please do not just add it back, but raise the question on the talk page of the article. Thank you ~ LindsayHello 06:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove the irrelevant cite that was appearing at the head of the page. In the meanwhile, could you suggest a relevant page where this well researched excerpt can be included? Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think, maybe we could, perhaps, include an additional heading for nominations? Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already suggested that article be split. And as far as "Peace Prize" is concerned, it is rife with controversies over both winners and nominations. That alone warrants a page of its own. Don't you think? Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What i think is that if you want to change the scope of the article (including nominations), the talk page is the place to suggest that; i'll warn you that i think you'll get a lot of pushback, because it would make the already large article entirely unwieldy. I also think that the talk page would be the place to go to discuss splitting the article which, as you note, has been suggested; there is a current discussion there (Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#Split incoming), so why not add to it? ~ LindsayHello 07:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now mentioned my grievances there. Still, I am certainly upset with the development as restoring an edit can be a chore of its own. And yet, I understand the importance of consensus. So I sincerely hope that the community addresses it at some point. You have my thanks for timely replies. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Amigao. An edit that you recently made to Illegal drug trade in China seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amigao (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Criticism of the military of Pakistan for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of the military of Pakistan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the military of Pakistan 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, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. Thanks for the notification. I shall look into it. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some help (Nepalese poem)

[edit]

Hi,

Greetings @Ritwik Deuba, I am user:Bookku usually promote writings in information and knowledge gap areas.

In COVID times I had taken note of a Nepalese language poem in the article COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture#Literature.

I also started a draft in my sandbox User:Bookku/Corona Says. I am not sure if the poem has got further media and academic coverage or gone cold. I wish and request you to help by taking stalk of the present chances of a viable separate article, if not then I may discard the draft.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,
Apologies for a late reply.
Unless and until a poem is very well known or renowned to the point of making it to pop culture, it may not necessarily warrant a page of its own. However, the reference to such a work can be included on the page of an author if such a page exists (given that you are not the author yourself because that would be conflict of interests). Like you said, if there is lack of a lot of media or academic coverage, a page may not be made. If it is made then your article will be considered a stub on grounds of lack of content or it being too short and that is if the article gets approved in the first place. An article can take up to 3 months to publish if I am not wrong. I must mention that I am no literature expert but I do understand the basics here.
So unless it is something like Ozymandius, a well known sonnet, I am afraid it will be quite an endeavor. Of course, you are still welcome to try.
Speaking from my own experience, I tried submitting an article last year and it was pretty much rejected. You need a lot of secondary sources and they need to be reliable. Cheers! Ritwik Deuba (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI

[edit]

Hi -- are you using AI tools for your edits here? If so, can you mention:

  • What tool(s) you are using, and what version
  • What prompts, features, and/or workflow you are doing
  • What review you are doing of the output

Thanks you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Pretty much any Large Language Model can be used for phrasing. So there is no one particular tool. However, I have to check citations and dates manually and read and manually reedit myself before I bring about a draft to execution. Wikipedia policies suggest human oversight as crucial. AI has its own issues. It can definitely get dates wrong. It will also sometimes call a current president as "former". These are but a few examples. There are other issues as well.
Prompts have to be tailored accordingly to extract what exactly you require from an article or source. Could be a quote or sequence of events.
However, everything has to be proof-read and then sequence has to be changed if any tool or LLM cannot get the chronology or context right. And of course, contentious material will have to be removed, and one has to manually ensure that proper attribution is retained. Finally, if internal links are used then further modifications are to be made manually to match page names.
Finally, there is a proper review cycle with proofreading. If there is discrepancy, then one will have to manually rewrite the whole thing which defeats the entire purpose of saving time but such setbacks are frequent and happen often if one deals with more than a single source.
Also, AI can still struggle a lot with excessive data and can often co-relate completely unrelated things if you are using more than a single source, journa, article.
I know that this is a very generalized answer but just giving a heads up there. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, your final output will still have to be your own. It cannot technically be autogenerated. You have to do things your self. It is just like choosing between a hammer & nail and a drill machine. Both are tools but the latter is more advanced but it doesn't mean that you aren't doing it yourself. These tools cannot be left to work or act independently.
AI will not replace General Intelligence which is necessary for contextualization. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]