User talk:TonySt

This is TonySt's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives (Index)

2025/06 (June) 2025/07 (July) 2025/08 (August)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him.

This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Anti-vandalism

Hi. Thanks for reverting that vandalism on the list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Should we report the user for deliberate vandalism and similar offenses? Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nagito Komaeda the Second! I appreciate your thanks. I don't think we need to report them yet -- we usually like to give them at least 4 warnings first, and they haven't vandalized enough for that. If they keep going, they will probably get reported. Take care :) --tony 23:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone just wrote some trollish, vandalising or otherwise harmful comments Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nagito Komaeda the Second. That happens on my talk page sometimes. An idea: I can remove your comments from my talk page if you'd like, which may prevent you from being notified when someone adds harmful comments to my talk page. --tony 17:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle them, don't worry. Thanks for the suggestion though Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

about my edits

tony, what does the +## or -## mean? 47.204.51.113 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's the amount of bytes (increased or decreased) the article's size changed by the edit. You can read more here: WP:AORC. Take care --tony 20:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. how do you add a YouTube video as a sorce 47.204.51.113 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soju edits

I'm not understanding. I've followed the basic information provided to describe other american soju manufactures, then added sources as you mentioned and then you edit it out because it's promotional? (All mentioned name, location, rewards). 99.159.29.8 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The main reason for me removing the edit was because the links in the references didn't appear to be real. --tony 14:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Fixed it. Thank you. 99.159.29.8 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting that personal attack on my user talk page just as I was about to get to it. On top of it being an attack, I also prefer the term "geek" anyway. In all seriousness, though, thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any time :) --tony 14:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help On Dr.KA Paul Biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._A._Paul There are no murder charges against Dr. K.A. Paul. Certain individuals in India have allegedly spread false allegations and rumors in an attempt to damage his global reputation. Dr. Paul has been widely recognized for his humanitarian work in India, where he has saved and assisted many people through various charitable initiatives. Kishoresks (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kishoresks. I changed the title of the section, but I'm not knowledgable enough about this subject or its surrounding context to become any more involved than that. I urge you to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and then if you can find reliable sources which clearly show that the person is not being charged with any conspiracy charge, you could add that information with inline citations to those reliable sources (see WP:REFB for more info). I won't be making any more changes to that article, even if someone reverts my change. If you get lost, please definitely check out the WP:TEAHOUSE, where they can help more than I can. Take care --tony 16:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

collapsing apparent legal document --tony

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1816 OF 2017 Between :- Kilari Anand Paul ...PETITIONER Versus The State of AP Rep PP ...RESPONDENT DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED  : 04.04.2025 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1816 OF 201 7 % 04.04.2025 Between: Kilari Anand Paul ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP Rep PP ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners  : PARTY IN PERSON ^ Counsel for the Respondent  : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2008) 2 SCC 492 2) (1977) 4 SCC 551 3) AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 239 4) 2022 SCC OnLine All 976 5) (2023) 14 SCC 576 6) (2019) 8 SCC 27 7) (2014) 6 SCC 495 8) (1876) 1 AlI 316 9) (1853) I E & B 435 10) (1899) 1 Bom LR 689 11) AIR 1961 SC 1698 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 12) 1961 (2) Cri LJ 848 (SC) 13) 1996 CrLJ 344 (Ori) 14) (1881) 3 Mad 4, 5 15) (1948) Pak LR 155 16) (1872) 4 NWP 46, 48 17) (1902) PR No.25 of 1902 18) (1882) PR No.45 of 1882 19) (1884) 8 Mad 5 20) (1899) 2 Bom LR 286 21) (1899) 2 Bom LR 304 22) (1969) 72 Bom LR 575 23) (1950) Cut 75 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1816 of 2017 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 14.02.2017 in R.C.No.1816 of 2017 in Cr. No.229 of 20 12, passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole , in taking cognizance against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4. 2. It should be pointed out at the threshold that the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, instead of taking cognizance again st the offence, has taken cognizance against the accused . The Hon’ble Apex Court in S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International L imited1 held at paragraph No.20 that cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offender. The learned Magistrate missed this fundamental principle in Criminal Cases while taking cognizance. 3. The revision case is maintainable as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10, it is held as under: 1 (2008) 2 SCC 492 2(1977) 4 SCC 551 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 “9. …Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or the evidence adduced in Court…” “10. …Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercises for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial.” 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, on 30.03.2016 filed a final report in Cr.No.229 of 2012 at Ongole Taluka Police Station, requesting the learned Magistrate to treat the case as "Action Dropped" and issue Referred Charge Sheet ( RCS ) proceedings. 5. Originally, the Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Ongole, registered a case in Cr.No.229 of 2012 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 116, 120(B) and 307 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’) against the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4. 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 6. The facts and events that transpired in this case are required to be mentioned vividly to understand the entire gamut of the case. 7. The impugned order refers that the petitioner is a Renowned Evangelist Pan India and global and running Charitable Trust in the name of Global Peace Initiative Ministries and serving the poor and needy . The petitioner had some disputes with his brother, by name David Raju, in regard to distribution of properties. It was alleged that petitioner was responsible for killing his brother. In that connection, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.10 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of ‘the IPC.,’ in Addakula Police Station of Mahabubnagar District . 8. LW-1- I ndla Srinivasan, earlier worked as Inspector Police, Ongole Taluka Police Station . LW-2-Borigala Koteswara Rao is resident of Krishnalanka, Vijayawa da, who earlier worked as in-charge of charitable school belongs to the petitioner at Sadasivapeta . LW-2 was also an accused in Cr.No.10 of 2010 under Section 302 of ‘the IPC.,’ at Addakula Police Station, Mahabubnagar District along with the petitioner . 9. The witnesses LW-3/Vemarthy Srihari @ Hari, LW-4/Madduluri Ravindra Babu, LW-5/Makkena Ratnam @ Bujji, LW- 10/Dudekula Khasim, LW-11/Chitapaneni Durgarao, and LW- 12/PalugundlaVenkatareddy, being real estate business agents met LW-2 on 18.05.2012 at about 7.30 PM at Mourya Hotel, Ongole, in order to discuss and dispose of 210 acres of land 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 located at Bacharam Village, Ranga Reddy District and they dispersed after their discussion. 10. LW-1 on 20.05.2012 at about 19.00 hours lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Taluk Police Station, Ongole Town that he received a phone call from the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, at 10.00 PM on 18.05.2012 and the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole , asked him to enquire into the complaint of petitioner , who apprehended danger in view of chasing the car of his brother- in-law by L.W.2/ Borigala Koteswara Rao with his car bearing No AP 16 TV 9651, therefore he contacted the petitioner and his brother- in-law Yesupadam on phone and Yesupadam informed that LW.2, who was an accused in the murder case of David Raju, who is the brother of petitioner, was chasing their car when they were proceeding to Ongole, and they apprehended danger from him. 11. It was further reported by the complainant that the petitioner had asked him to meet him in the Hotel Central Park, Ongole, where the petitioner stayed. Accordingly, after repeated requests of petitioner complainant met the petitioner . Complainant operated a spy camera pen to know the criminal intention of petitioner. Petitioner had offered him bribe and requested him either to do away the life of LW.2 or hand over him to his personnel, so that they would do away the life of LW.2 . The complainant conveyed the evil intention of petitioner to LW.2 , who informed him that LW.2 and others 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 committed murder of David Raju, the brother of petitioner at the request of petitioner due to financial disputes between them and that petitioner might be taking steps to kill him so as to suppress his role in the murder case of his brother. Once again, the complainant met petitioner in Room No. 302 of Hotel Central Park, Ongole, where petitioner offered huge amount for commission of offence and as an advance he gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- to him to hand over L.W.2 . After collecting total information from the petitioner, complainant lodged a report in Taluk Police Station. The report of complainant was registered as a case in Cr.No.229/2012 under Sections 120(B) and 307 of ‘the IPC.,’ on 20.05.2012 at 19.00 hours by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police S tation . 12. As per the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, the investigation in this case was entrusted to N. Ashok Kumar , the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur. He took up investigation on 20.05. 2012, examined complainant, recorded his statement and seized the Spy camera bearing No.10238 having 4 G.B. memory and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant which amount was purportedly given by petitioner to complainant for executing the alleged deal. 13. The Investigating Officer arrested A.2 to A.4 and seized two knives one each from A.2 and A.3, a nylon rope from A.4 on 21.5. 2012 and quails car AP 9 AK 2222. Later , the petitioner was also arrested and seized Nokia Cell 10 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 phone from his possession on 21.5. 2012 and forwarded petitioner and A.2 to A.4 to the learned Magistrate for judicial remand . 14. On 23.05.2012 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, filed a memo before the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, adding Section 12 of ‘the P.C. Act.,’ and Section 116 of ‘the IPC.,’ requesting the learned Magistrate to transfer the entire record to the Special Judge, ACB Court, Nellore . Another memo was also filed before the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, praying to record the voice of the petitioner for comparing with the voice records of petitioner which were collected from the complainant and LW-2 by the A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Hyderabad, for expert opinion. However, the memo was returned with objections to file the same before the Special Judge ACB Court, Nellore. 15. The learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate Court sent the entire record to the Special Court for trial of offences at Nellore, but the same was remitted back to the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ongole, with an objection that sanction orders were not obtained. 16. On 24.05.2012 the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Ongole recorded the statement of LW- 2 under Section164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ on the requisition of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur. The petitioner and other accused were enlarged on bail on different dates by various Courts. 11 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 17. On 13.07.2012 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, filed another memo before the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, with a prayer to record the voice of petitioner for comparing with the voice records which were collected from the complainant and LW-2 by the experts of FSL Hyderabad. 18. On 20.07.2012 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, filed a preliminary charge sheet against the petitioner, A2 to A4 pending the investigation that the voice of petitioner has to be got recorded in the Court for sending the same to FSL for comparison with the voice of petitioner available in the Spy camera. 19. The memo was allowed by the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole vide order R.No.1079/2012, dated 19.11.20 12 directing the petitioner to appear before the FSL, Hyderabad on the dates given by the investigating agency for giving his sample voice . The Director, FSL, Hyderabad, was directed to fix up a date as early as possible for recording the voice of petitioner and production of petitioner to record the same and compare with the Audio CD and spy camera produced before him. 20. Subsequently , on 26.11. 2012 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer , Kandukur, prepared a letter of advice and addressed a letter to the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, requesting to give authorization to PC.1126-K.Ankaiah, of Ongole Taluk Police Station, in order to forward the 12 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 material objects i.e. , 1-Pen Spy Camera containing Video and Audio voice of petitioner and Nokia Cell phone of LW.2 containing voice conversation between LW.2 and petitioner and also recorded the voice in CDs. Accordingly, the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate Court forwarded the material objects to FSL, Hyderabad vide Dis.No.71 d ated 10.1. 2013 and the same was returned by the FSL, Hyderabad vide file No.FSL/PEU/RJT/2013/2014, dated 11.3.20 13 with remarks, "Without specimen voice it is not possible to identify the voice of the accused. Hence please resubmit the case along with specimen voice." 21. Similarly , the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, filed a memo before the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, seeking permission for sending the seized spy camera and CD to FSL, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison with the voice of petitioner. The memo was allowed in R.No.1219/2012 dated 13.08.2012 directing the office to send the audio CD and Spy camera to FSL, Hyderabad for comparison with the voice of the petitioner . The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition No.10/2013 against the order dated 19.11.2012 in R.No.1079/12 wherein he was directed to give voice sample. Another petition vide Crl.P.No.11/2013 was also filed by him against the order dated 19.11.2012 in R.No 1219/2012 for forwarding Spy camera and CD to FSL, Hyderabad and both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge , Ongole, on 15.4.2013. 13 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 22. The petitioner moved a Petition before the High Court of A.P in Crl.P.No.4701 of 2013 to grant stay of all proceedings in pursuance of the orders in Crl.P.No.11 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, and stay was granted. 23. On 29.06.2013 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur received Memorandom vide C.No.33/C1/DCRB/2013 , dated 25.6.2013 from the Superintendent of Police , Ongole, in pursuance of his letter dated 23.4.2013 for according permission to investigate the case under Section 12 of ‘the P.C. Act’. It was returned vide C.O Memo No. Rs 3017-complts- 2/013 , dated 22.5. 2013 that as per Sec tion 17(C) of ‘the P.C. Act’, an officer above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate the case after getting orders from Superintendent of Police, Ongole. Later , the Superintendent of Police, Ongole , instructed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, to proceed with the investigation . As there was a stay granted by the High Court of A.P in Crl.M.P.No.4701 of 2013, the Investigating Officer could not proceed further to investigate in this Case. 24. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4702 of 2013 on the file the High Court of A.P and later he withdrew it vide a letter dated 27.07.2014 and the stay granted by the High Court of A.P was vacated. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole , who filed final report (referred charge sheet), after receiving instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam, Ongole vide Memo 14 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 C.No.45/SDPO/Camp/2015, dated 07.09.2015 had taken up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of LW- 14-K.Raghurami Reddy, the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole. 25. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, in his investigation came to conclusion that complainant was more enthusiastic in eliciting some information from the petitioner which was not relevant and unwarranted. The Investigating Officer further concluded that from the conversation , it was clear that complainant allowed the petitioner to take more irrelevant facts which were nothing to do with the instructions given by the Superintendent of Police, Ongole. Fu rther, the promise to pay one Crore rupees by the petitioner and accepting Rs.3,00,000/- by complainant for performance of illegal act as requested by the petitioner went a long way. 26. Furthermore, the complainant ought not to have accepted that amount without express permission in writing from his superior officers who are authorized to grant such an accord. Detention of TATA Indica Car which was used by LW-2 and others for travelling and keeping LW-2 in the Police Station was excessive act of the complainant. Complainant going all the way to Central P ark Hotel where the petitioner was staying, without taking any respectable mediators or his subordinate officers gave rise to a doubt in the genuiness of the seizure of the cash. The investigating officer further opined that the conversation said to have taken place in between the complainant 15 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 and the petitioner recorded by the complainant goes to show that the complainant himself prolonged the conversation where several un-necessary things came which were neither useful for investigation nor given benefit to the petitioner. 27. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, submitted that the ingredients that are required to attract the Section 307 of ‘the IPC.,’ are missing, and even as per the contents of FIR no offence was made out. Originally, an FIR was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B) and 307 read with 109 of ‘the IPC’ . It is opined that abatement by conspiracy is not contemplated under the definition of abatement. During investigation , Section 116 of ‘the IPC.,’ and Section 12 of ‘the P.C. Act’ were added. Section 116 of ‘the IPC.,’ has no application to the facts on record as there was no further act done and at best, it may be at the stage of preparation. It was further opined that Section 12 of ‘the P.C. Act’ is also not applicable as the complainant failed to take required steps as contemplated under law in cases of traps. Thus, it was opined by the Investigating officer that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and other accused to charge them before the Court. 28. Therefore, the Investigating Officer sought the legal opinion of Legal Advisor , T.Purushotama Rao, District Police Office, Ongole, to proceed further. The Legal Advisor opined that no prima facie was made out to 16 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 prosecute the petitioner in the Court of Law. Therefore, the Investigating Officer , Ongole, submitted the entire record to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, for orders to drop further action in this Case. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, passed orders vide C.No.136/C1/DCRB /UN/2015, dated 14.12.2015 permitting to refer the case as “Action Dropped”. Hence , a notice was served to the complainant on 08.02.2016 informing him about referring the case as “Action Dropped”. 29. LW-20/the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur, earlier prepared Form -60 on 20.05.2012 and submitted it to the Jurisdiction al Magistrate on 25.12.2012 handing over the case property i.e., Crime vehicle (Qualis No.AP9 AK 2222) . It was returned by the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, vide Dis.No.914, dated 06.05.2013 with a direction to produce the property later. Similarly, LW-20 prepared a Form in Form-60 on 20.05.2012 submitted to the Court on 18.08.2012 handing over the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- seized by the complainant from the petitioner and it was returned with a remark by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, vide Dis.No.906, dated 06.05.2013 that the property to be produced . 30. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, further submitted that a notice was served on LW-20 to produce the case property-cash of Rs.3,00 ,000/- and after receipt of the cash, he would submit to the learned Court. 17 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 31. Pursuant to filing of t he referred charge s heet by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of complainant. In his sworn statement, the complainant stated that the competent investigating officer dropped the investigation as “Action Dropped”, for which, he had no objection in dropping the case against the petitioner. In his sworn statement the complainant further stated that the investigation reveals that the petitioner never committed any offence, hence the case was referred as “Action Dropped”. 32. Similarly, L.W.9/Reddy Yesupadam, a Paster of Visakhapatnam, gave a sworn statement that he had no objection in closing the case as an “Action Dropped”. 33. The Crucial witness LW-2, was also examined by the learned Magistrate about taking cognizance, in his sworn statement LW-2 clearly deposed as under:- “…I was present in Mourya Hotel at Ongole on pursuance of my real estate work. By the time the C.I of police came to the hotel and lifted me and taken me to Ongole Taluk Police Station along with my friends. I have a car bearing No.AP.16 TV 9651. The police searched my car an d enquired my purpose of visit. I disclose my purpose of visit that I came to Ongole for real estate work. Simultaneously some of the people came from Nellore to Ongole to pursue their real estate work. They are also called by police and enquired. I was detained by the Police in the police station itself. It was happened on 18- 05-2012. On very next day also the Police did not allow me go out. My friends also detained in police locku p along with me. My mobiles were taken by the C.I of Police. On 19- 05- 2012 I was taken to the DSP Ongole. He asked me that why K.A.Paul asked him to encounter. I replied that I do not know why K.A.Paul targeted me that I came to Ongole on perusal of my real estate work. 18 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 DSP further stated me that K.A.Paul offered 1 crore rupees to C.I by name Srinivasan for encountering me for that we refused to do so even they requested to hand over me if encounter is not possible. The DSP further enquired the disputes between myself and K.A.Paul. I disclosed that I do not have any issues with K.A.Paul in fact I was very much layer to him but expressed my anxiety whyK.A.Paul tried to kill me. The Police did not shown Spy Camera and voice recorder of K.A.Paul. The DSP further informed me that brother- in-law of K.A. Paul by name Yesupadam expressed apprehension against me and K. Paul in that juncture I was caught by the Police. I stated that I do not have any grudges withK.A.Paul and his brother- in-law. I was just extended my services to them. After enquiry by the DSP again we were brought to the police station. In spite of that the police did allow us to go. Mid-night 12.00 clock the police shifted to CCS police station. C.I warned me that K.A.Paul requesting to encounter me for that he refused to do so and he fu rther informed at least K.A.Paul requested to hand over me to his followers if such thing is happened I was killed by them inhumanly. The Police further apprehended me if I made a statement against K.A.Paul I will be free out of the case otherwise warned me many cases foisted against me. As there is no other way I have stated before the Hon'ble Judge against the accused during my 164 Cr.P.C statement. As stated by the C.I of Police I depicted before Court. After came out I came to know that K.A.Paul was arrested. In fact myself and K.A.Paulwas not responsible for murder of his brother and we were unnecessarily suspected and implicated in this case. On the same day the police released us by obtaining some of the signatures in white paper .” 34. It is important to note that the very same witness LW-2 on earlier occasion i.e., on 25.04.2012 gave a statement under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ stating that the complainant informed him that the petitioner persuaded to do away his life in an encounter, for which, the petitioner lured complainant to one Crore and as an advance, he offered Rs.5,00,000/- and disclosed the conversation that happened in between the petitioner and complainant recorded in Spy Camera and the said Spy Camera recordings were given by LW-2 and complainant to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur. Even as per the earlier statement recorded under Section 16 4 of 19 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, LW-2, was not a direct eyewitness . 35. In his sworn statement, LW-2 supported the petitioner, and he further stated that the complainant had gone beyond his powers and kept him in wrongful detention for a while. The complainant persuaded LW-2 to depose against the petitioner. Lw -2 in his sworn statement stated that the petitioner was un -necessarily suspected and implicated in the case. 36. It is more important to note that when the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole , filed a final report with a request to further “Action Dropped” touching the ingredients of Section 12 of ‘ the P.C. Act’ , the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the final report and record the statement of the witnesses to take cognizance against the petitioner inasmuch as the learned Magistrate was neither empowered nor authorized to take cognizance, without looking into any of the relevant aspects, especially when Section 12 of 'the P.C. Act' was also invoked in the case, in addition to the offences under ‘the IPC’. The right or proper course available to the learned Magistrate was to return the final report with an endorsement that the final report be submitted before the appropriate Special Judge, having jurisdiction under ‘the P.C. Act’. On this ground also the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not at all sustainable. 20 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 37. The learned Magistrate ought to have verified thoroughly the final report referring the case as an “Action Dropped” before proceeding further against the petitioner and other accused. Even after recording of the sworn statements of complainant, LWs-2 and 9, who deposed that there was no case against the petitioner and other accused, the learned Magistrate ought not to have further proceeded in the matter. 38. The learned Magistrate miserably failed to understand in a correct and proper perspective whether a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and other accused as rightly pointed out by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, in his final report. The transaction that ensued in between the petitioner and the complainant, of course , the complainant only invited the petitioner to drag further the conversation leading to an unwarranted discussion to do away the life of LW -2. The conduct of the complainant leaves much to be desired. He has gone beyond his limitations and powers. He was expected to obtain prior permission in writing and take along with him respectable mediators or his subordinate officers before detecting a case or apprehending any accused. 39. The complainant was given permission by the then Superintendent of Police, only to an extent of apprising some information and that information/instruction was carried out on 18.05.2012 at about 10:50 PM. The 21 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 complainant was not expected to act beyond this limited scope without expressly obtaining prior permission from his Superintendent of Police. 40. The learned Magistrate observed that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused , whereas the opinion of the Investigating Officer was that no prima facie case found against the petitioner and other accused . 41. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, held that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused; the Courts below ought not to have examined the fairness of criminal investigation and other related aspects concerning improvement of witness statements and it was necessary for the High Court to reconsider the entire matter and decide the revision petition afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai at paragraph No.16 observed that it is well settled that the Trial Court while considering the discharge petition was not to act as a mere post office. The Court must sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there were sufficient grounds to try the suspect. 42. The party- in-person relied on the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Dabeer v. State of U.P4, wherein the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the protest petition filed by the informant therein, was 3AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 239 4 2022 SCC OnLine All 976 22 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 quashed. However, the Judgment in Dabeer was reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zunid v. State of U.P5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,6 held that cognizance was taken without any basis and accordingly, the said order was set aside. 43. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I7, dealt with the aspect of the sting operation, and at paragrap h No. 10, it is held as under:- “10…The expression ‘sting operation’ seems to have emerged from the title of a popular move called “The Sting” which was screened sometime in the year 1973. The movie was based on a somewhat complicated plot hatched by two persons to trick a third person into committing a crime. Being essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal, a sting operation raises certain moral and ethical questions. The victim, who is otherwise innocent, is lured into committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentiality of the circumstances raising the potential question as to how such a victim can be held responsible for the crime which he would not have committed but for the enticement. Another issue that arises from such an operation is the fact that the means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself involves a culpable act.” 44. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record, the conversation in between the petitioner and the complainant and alleged exchange of Rs.3,00,000/ - would not make out any prima facie case attracting the ingredients of Section 307 of ‘the IPC.,’ or Sections 116, 120-B and 307 read with 109 of ‘the IPC ’., let alone Section 12 of ‘the P.C. Act’. Even assuming for 5 (2023) 14 SCC 576 6 (2019) 8 SCC 27 7 (2014) 6 SCC 495 23 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 a moment argument’s sake, though not admitted by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner persuaded or requested the complainant to do away with the life of LW-2, and parted with an amount Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, would be only at the stage of preparation. This preparation had not reached to the stage of an attempt as contemplated under Section 307 of ‘the IPC’. The transaction in between the petitioner and the complainant is only an incomplete or inchoate one for which the Courts would not take cognizance. 45. In every crime, it has to be remembered that there is first intention to commit it; secondly, preparation to commit it; thirdly, attempt to commit it. If the third stage i.e., attempt is successful, and then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete but the law punishes the person attempting the act. An ‘attempt’ is made punishable, because every attempt, although it fails of success, must create alarm, which, of itself, is an injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded. 46. In Peterson8, it is held that an attempt to commit a crime must be distinguished from an intention to commit it, and from preparation made for its commission. In Dugdale9, it is held that the law does not take notice of an 8 (1876) 1 AlI 316 9 (1853) I E & B 435 24 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 intention without an act. In Baku10, it held that mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act, cannot constitute and offence. 47. In Abhayanand v. State of Bihar11, and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab12, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a culprit first intends to commit the offence, and then makes preparation for committing it an d thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence, if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence - the act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offence but it must be an act during the course of committing the offence. 48. In Damodar Behera v. State of Orissa13, it is held that will is not to be taken for the deed, unless there be some external act which shows that progress has been made in the direction of it, or towards maturing and affecting it. In an attempt to commit an offence, there must be intention to 10 (1899) 1 Bom LR 689 11 AIR 1961 SC 1698 12 1961 (2) Cri LJ 848 (SC) 13 1996 CrLJ 344 (Ori) 25 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 commit the crime combined with doing of some act adapted to, but falling short of its actual commission. 49. Quoted with approval from Mayne’s Criminal Law in Peterson’s supra and Padala Venkatasami14, and Ashad Hussain15, it is held that preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of an offence. In Ramsarun Chowbey16 and Piara Ram17 it is held that the provisions of section do not extend to make punishable as attempts acts done in the mere stage of preparation. 50. In Padal Venkatasami supra it is held that the law allows a locus poenitentiae and will not hold that a person has attempted a crime until he has passed beyond the stage of preparation. Indeed, preparation to commit an offence is punishable only when the preparation is to commit offences under Section 122 (waging war against the Government of India), Section 126 (preparation to commit depredation on the territories of any Power at peace with the Government of India) and Section 399 (preparation to commit dacoity). 51. In Data Ram18, the accused, on quarrelling with the complainant, fetched a sword, but was seized and disarmed by others before he could use 14 (1881) 3 Mad 4, 5 15 (1948) Pak LR 155 16 (1872) 4 NWP 46, 48 17 (1902) PR No.25 of 1902 18 (1882) PR No.45 of 1882 26 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 it; he, however, asserted, while under restraint, his intention of killing the complainant if he were let go; it was held that fetching a sword was not an attempt under this section; it is quite possible that although the prisoner fetched the sword, he might not after all have actually used it against the complainant who was his own brother. 52. In Ramakka19 a woman ran to a well stating she would jump into it, and she was caught before she could reach it; it was held that she could not be convicted of an attempt to commit suicide as she might have changed her mind before jumping into the well. 53. Quoted with approval from Mayne’s Criminal Law in Peterson supra , and in Padala Venkatasami supra it is held that attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparations are made. 54. In Luxman20, it is held that an ‘attempt’ is an intentional preparatory action which fails in object – which so fails through circumstances independent of the person who seeks its accomplishment. In Vinayek21 and Yusuf Abdulla v. R.N. Shukla22, it is held that when a man does an intentional act with a view to attain a certain end and fails in his object through some circumstances independent of his own will, then that man has attempted to effect the object at which he aimed. 19 (1884) 8 Mad 5 20 (1899) 2 Bom LR 286 21 (1899) 2 Bom LR 304 22 (1969) 72 Bom LR 575 27 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 55. In Tustipada Mandal23, it is held that the test for determining whether the acts constitute attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. But where the thing done is such as, if not prevented by any extraneous cause, would fructify into commission of an offence, it would amount to an attempt to commit that offence. 56. In the instant case the complainant being a responsible Police Officer ought not to have entertained an unwarranted kind of conversation with the petitioner for doing an alleged illegal act. The learned Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction and also not properly understood the case and misguided himself in taking cognizance against the petitioner and other accused. Taking cognizance for an offence and issuing process to the accused without there being legally permissible prima facie material or evidence would certainly violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner and other accused . 57. Furthermore, a s per Section 17(C ) of ‘the P.C. Act’, only an officer of or above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from the Anti- Corruption Bureau is authorized to investigate such cases, and not regular DSP from the general police unit. Without there being a special government 23 (1950) Cut 75 28 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1816 of 2017 Dated 04.04.2025 order, a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the regular Police Department is neither permitted nor authorized to conduct the investigation under the provisions of ‘the P.C. Act’. 58. In this case there was no sufficient prima facie material available against the petitioner to proceed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 116,120-B and 307 read with 109 of ‘the IPC ’. Undoubtedly, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is perverse, suffers from material irregularity, miscarriage of justice and amounts to a flagrant violation and abuse of procedure. It is, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be interfered with and set aside. 59. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 in R.C.S. No.1816 of 2017 , arising out of Cr. No.229 of 2012, is set aside. 60. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.04.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o RSI/VTS

Kishoresks (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Interest Litigation on Betting Apps by K. A. Paul

In May 2025, evangelist K. A. Paul filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India seeking a nationwide ban or regulation of online betting applications. The petition highlighted concerns over gambling-related addiction, financial distress, and suicides among Indian youth, particularly referencing incidents reported in Telangana.

Paul’s petition requested:

• A complete ban or central legislation regulating betting apps,
• Legal accountability for promoters and brand ambassadors of such apps,
• Mandatory health warnings similar to those used in tobacco advertising, and
• Time-bound action by the government to address the issue.

On 23 May 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan issued a notice to the Union Government, seeking its response on the matter. The bench also raised concerns about the promotion of betting apps by celebrities and social media influencers.

Although Paul is a Christian evangelist, he has stated that his petition was motivated by humanitarian concerns, emphasizing the impact of gambling addiction across religious and social communities in India. Kishoresks (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thestatesman.com/india/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-on-pil-seeking-ban-or-regulation-of-betting-apps-1503436565.html Kishoresks (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Interest Litigation by K. A. Paul in Pastor Praveen Pagadala’s Death

In March 2025, Pastor Praveen Pagadala died in a two-wheeler accident near the Godavari Fourth Bridge in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. According to police reports, he lost control of his vehicle while allegedly under the influence of alcohol. The state government, led by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, ordered a detailed inquiry, appointing forensic experts and special investigation teams in response to public concern and protests over the incident.^[1]

Following the death, evangelist and politician K. A. Paul filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court requesting an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In his petition, Paul alleged several irregularities, including delays in registering the First Information Report (FIR), non-disclosure of the post-mortem report, intimidation of witnesses, and possible tampering with CCTV evidence.^[2]

On 16 April 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Cheemalapati Ravi issued notices to the state government, the Director General of Police, and other authorities, directing them to file responses to Paul’s petition.^[3] During proceedings, Paul personally presented his arguments, which received attention in the media for their emotional delivery.^[4]

The High Court required Paul to deposit ₹5 lakh with the court registry before further consideration of the PIL. The bench also cautioned against making public allegations such as claims of CCTV footage deletion without presenting verifiable evidence.^[5] Kishoresks (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Paul and the Nimisha Priya Case

In 2025, K. A. Paul, an Indian Christian evangelist and politician, became involved in efforts to secure the release of Nimisha Priya, a nurse from Kerala who had been sentenced to death in Yemen for murder. Through diplomatic and interfaith initiatives, Paul claimed to have persuaded Yemeni authorities to cancel Priya's death sentence, and expressed gratitude to both Indian and Yemeni leaders for their collaboration.^[6]

However, the Save Nimisha Priya Action Council, a group supporting her family, criticized Paul’s involvement, alleging that it delayed the release process. They claimed that his actions interfered with negotiations over blood money compensation, which had initially been agreed upon at $1 million.^[7][8]

In August 2025, a video appeal was released featuring Nimisha Priya's daughter, Mishel, and her husband, Thomas. In the video, Paul and the family appealed to the Houthi administration in Yemen for Priya’s release. Mishel, who had not seen her mother for over a decade, expressed her desire for her mother’s return.^[9][10]

The case remains subject to ongoing diplomatic efforts and differing perspectives on the role of various parties in the negotiation process.^[11] Kishoresks (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, please add the above stories under legal matters. Dr. K. A. Paul, widely recognized as the World’s Most Popular Evangelist, is advocating for hopeless and helpless people in India. Kishoresks (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. CM Chandrababu Naidu orders probe into death of Pastor Praveen
2. Dr K. A. Paul petitions Andhra Pradesh High Court for CBI probe
3. Andhra Pradesh High Court seeks state’s response on CBI probe plea
4. Netizens discuss K. A. Paul’s courtroom arguments
5. Andhra Pradesh High Court directs K. A. Paul to deposit ₹5 lakh in Pastor Praveen Pagadala PIL
6. Mathrubhumi
7. Gulf News
8. Times of India
9. Hindustan Times
10. Mathrubhumi
11. Times of India

Message from BKS580K

Tony I was the lead Carnegie Mellon University Electrical Engineer that designed many Dante I systems. My involvement with project was extensive (includes design of Hellfire Laser Scanner, Power System, Data Rocket Telemetry System, Intelligent Foot Sensors, and others). My name is specifically mentioned in published articles from project timeline. BKS580K (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BKS580K:! Thank you for your contributions. I'd like to share this page (click here) with you, which has a lot of really great information -- it's a helpful guide for experts like you, and I highly recommend checking it out. To borrow a little bit of what it says, The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects. The reason I removed your edits at Mount Erebus is because they may not meet verifiability requirements, or meet Wikipedia's manual of style. That's because we can only repeat information that's published in reliable souces, and we need to do it without framing the information as a note from the author. That's not to say your knowledge or experience isn't valuable -- it is very valuable here, and this page (which I linked earlier) has great information on how subject matter experts can make invaluable contributions to this project. Additionally, more information about verifiability and the manual of style can be found at the links I mentioned. Take care --tony 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MacLehose Press

Sorry, but the Return of the Condor Heroes is written by Jin Yong, and it's the work of the Chinese. However, I noticed some "nicknames" made by MacLehose Press, which I ain't heard of, and it's not authorized yet. So, that source may be invalid. The original work of Jin Yong do not even include the unusual nicknames by this MacLehose Press. Protector100 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Protector100! No worries -- next time, it would be helpful if you add an edit summary, as sometimes it can be hard for other people to distinguish between legitimate constructive edits (like yours) and vandalism -- in other words, other people might think it's vandalism even though it actually isn't, just because there is no edit summary. Regardless, thank you for your contributions and for your note :) Take care --tony 01:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously question the appellation that Protector100's edits as legitimate and constructive since they seem to operate under the impression that translated names they personally have not heard of cannot be official. The edits that they have undone are sourced, and in doing so flies very close to vandalism. _dk (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Underbar dk thank you for the context. If they're removing well-sourced content, those edits should probably be reverted. --tony 04:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is not even recognized by the Chinese community. It's not even legalized. Protector100 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Protector100: I don't see why the Chinese community would need to recognize the English translation for it to be included in the English Wikipedia. If you claim that the translation was published without consultation with the original copyright holders, you will need to present proof. If you continue to remove cited, verifiable information, you will be reported as a vandal. _dk (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These translations are not seen or heard for years since Jin Yong wrote the books. That's the only proof. And there's no news about these translations. Even if the information is verifiable, it's based on false advertisements.Protector100 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Protector100 That you, presumably a Chinese speaker, have not heard about an English translation does not mean there is no news about these translations. Here's coverage of the translation from The Economist, The Guardian, The Ohio State University, and The Beijing Review (Representing the "Chinese community"). (Apologies to tony for continuing the discussion that ended up being here in usertalk.) _dk (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I'm obviously confused about where links and external links go. Are you able to give me a refresher for me please? (And thank you.) 2604:3D09:AA7A:1160:17E4:D0E9:DB93:41E9 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Like I mentioned, generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Take care --tony 01:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norris edits

Hi! Just checking in about my edits to George W. Norris's page. I edited the anti-lynching section to reflect the lack of evidence to the claims that he thought it was unconstitutional and would lead to civil war. I am not totally understanding why I need evidence to make an edit that attempts to rectify a lack of evidence. I implore the original author of that section to add evidence, but as I mentioned in my note, I searched through the books cited in that pdf (using archive.org) and did not find mention of this. I totally understand that edits on Wikipedia require evidence, which is exactly why I made this edit in the first place. I attempted to edit it to a neutral language due to the fact that there was no evidence given to the claim. Farandaway7 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farandaway7! Thank you for getting in touch. The parts that you removed make sense, but the reason I left my note and reverted your changes was the unsourced additions of: As a leading Progressive Republican, Norris supported the direct election of senators, ratified by the states in the Seventeenth Amendment. He also promoted the conversion of all state legislatures to the unicameral system. Only the Nebraska Legislature passed this change in 1934. All other states have retained a two-house system and Also in 1961, Norris was inducted into the Nebraska Hall of Fame. Those are claims that should be supported by reliable, secondary sources in the form of inline citations. I'm not trying to say they were not a leading Progressive Republican, for instance, but we still need those citations to support it -- otherwise it could be seen as Wikipedia making that determination instead of a secondary source. Take care --tony 02:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, just reinstate my edit

Hi Tony, my edit on Arthanatheesa article wasn't violating any Wikipedia rules. I just corrected the misappropriate caste name ( calling Vanniyar as Vanniyar kula Kshatriya is an insult to real Kshatriyas) that can hurt sentiment. SooniyarDavidson (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

I really appreciated your help on the Rory Jennings page, great work! Plasticwonder (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasticwonder Likewise :) Take care --tony 19:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi sorry I forgot to put my sources and was sadly reported and banned by sombody

i got banned and I apologize for forgetting my source I so skibidi (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just sad Accccepting (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You havent been blocked at all, you where given a light warning. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You reversed my edit in August 16th because i needed to add sources. The thing is only one of the topics needed to have sources. the rest i got from their own pages.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_16&diff=prev&oldid=1306079566 Jafari Azeri (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jafari Azeri! I reverted your pending change edit because any entries added to day of year articles need to have inline citations that directly support the entry, even if what's being added is a Wikipedia article. I actually didn't know about this either until recently -- you can read more about it at this link: WP:DOYCITE. Take care --tony 00:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. thanks and sorry for the late reply I was sleeping Jafari Azeri (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply huh... I have been waiting at least for a reply for me on one the Haiti talk page! Accccepting (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was not cited?

You messaged me saying I didn't source a reliable source on the Alex Feder page. For my photo? Or the birthdate? DustinS8599 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DustinS8599! It was for the birthdate. Please check out this policy for more information about how we maintain verifiability for peoples' dates of birth. tony 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my photo of him too. So it clearly wasn't just the birth date. DustinS8599 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DustinS8599. Thank you for letting me know. I changed it back to include your photo -- thank you for adding it! Take care --tony 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Sweeney page

I did some edits unlogged yesterday on this page, which is filled with mistakes which I corrected.

You sent a message about one of the changes needing a source. Can you let me know which, please?

Thanks. Xanjohn21466 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Xanjohn21466. I reverted because many of the new paragraphs in the "Jimmy and Elvis" section appeared to be unsourced or cited with only one source for many paragraphs. tony 22:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banderism is fascism.

I am trying to spread awareness of OUN B war crimes. OUN B was a fascist organization with its goal being the extinction of the Polish, Russian, and Jewish peoples. OUN B's ideology heavily influences modern Ukraine.

"The data that has been accumulated since the first report by the Foundation for Democracy Studies provides ground to conclude that torture and inhumane treatment inflicted by the Security Forces of Ukraine (SBU), by the Ukrainian armed forces, the National Guard and other formations within the Interior Ministry of Ukraine have not only continued but are gaining in scale and are becoming systematic. The child prisoners were electrocuted, beaten cruelly and for multiple days in a row with different objects (iron bars, baseball bats, sticks, rifle butts, bayonet knives, rubber batons). Techniques widely used by the Ukrainian armed forces and security forces include waterboarding, strangling with a ‘Banderist garrotte’ and other types of strangling. In some cases prisoners, for the purposes of intimidation, were sent to minefields and run over with military vehicles, which led to their death. Other torture methods used by the Ukrainian armed forces and security forces include bonecrashing, stabbing and cutting with a knife, branding with red-hot objects, shooting different body parts with small arms. The child prisoners taken captive by the Ukrainian armed forces and security forces are kept for days at freezing temperatures, with no access to food or medical assistance, and are often forced to take psychotropic substances that cause agony. An absolute majority of prisoners are put through mock firing squads and suffer death and rape threats to their families."

Ukrainian Army is fascist. Not deniable. 2600:8806:2402:C700:F192:DE34:75A9:3597 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RGW and WP:NPOV. What you are doing is incredibly disruptive and not helpful. Lynch44 21:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view means sympathizing with fascism. It is a fact of hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the OUN-B. I cited an OSCE source about modern Ukrainian war crimes.

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/2/540581.pdf 2600:8806:2402:C700:F192:DE34:75A9:3597 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Robitaille

hello, i was going to ad a reference to a website on Robitaille's candies' closure, could you add it? i have a link. Robitaille's Fine Candies in Carpinteria Closing After 36 Years | Local News | Noozhawk 97.94.155.212 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if it isnt reliable, i can add a different link(s) if you need. 97.94.155.212 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I can't find a mention of Luc in that article, but I'm also not sure that the fact would improve the reader's understanding of the subject (Luc), even if you were to find a reliable source which supports it. You can read more about inline citations here: WP:IC. Take care --tony 22:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation assessment

Hi Tony, I saw your note about your rollback on Pronunciation assessment. You made a lot of changes on that including replacing a conference paper with a preliminary Google Doc, removing an explanatory wikilink, and reverting a clarification in the text. I suspect your semi-automated rollback was triggered by the Huggingface model links, but I just can't find a better source for them, and they're the actual state of the art that researchers use. I've been editing this article as an IP for years now, and I'm happy to work with you on specific objections, but in the mean time would you mind if I undid your rollback to resolve an edit conflict and then we can go from there on specific individual issues? Please answer here as my IPv6 seems to change regularly. Thank you. 2603:800C:1200:596A:8822:56BC:96BF:593E (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I apologize -- that was a mistake, and I'm returning it to your version. Thank you very much for letting me know :) --tony 03:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! I do appreciate it, and fully understand the confusion from those weird model citations which I guess flagged my work. Cheers! 2603:800C:1200:596A:8822:56BC:96BF:593E (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New IP trick

You probably noticed on User talk:Favonian that our favorite LTA is trying a new tactic where they add abusive material with one account and then delete it with another to it seems try to trick editors into restoring the vandal's original abusive edit... Very 3D chess but I'm pretty sure we'l be able to see through it as you did... Is that something you've seen before from other LTA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this situation specifically, but the behavior you're describing is common, it's called good hand / bad hand. --tony 15:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you've dealt with enough of them that I assumed you were aware they were connected. Consensus seems to be that they're Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, I've seen very basic good-hand bad-hand but never with the replication of a different disruptive pattern thrown in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re IP Block

Sorry Tony, I spoke to an SO today at the property and that's what I was told. I had asked about purchasing gaming items upon closing and was told about the remodel. I also have reached out directly to Truckee Gaming for further comment. I think a year's ban is a little excessive for what was a good faith comment Thepepperman (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thepepperman. Please check out the page here about original research, which is has helpful info about what kind of information we can use on Wikipedia. I'm not sure which IP block you're referring to, but I am not an administrator and cannot apply blocks. Take care --tony 23:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Zampatti Birthdate update

Hi Tony, I work for the Carla Zampatti family and her birthdate is listed incorrectly. The year should be 1938 not 1942. All the citations listed have used Wikipedia to source that her birth year is 1942. The family - her son Alexander Schuman has asked me to edit but it keeps reverting back. can you help please? Bcz2015 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bcz2015. Things written on Wikipedia have to be verifiable -- that is, the reader should be able to confirm the information by reading directly from reliable sources that are indicated by citations in the text (these things->^[1]). I'm not able to find any reliable sources indicating she was born in any year except 1942, and the sources which are listed, including this excellent obituary by the National Centre of Biography at the Australian National University, appear to be reliable. Unfortunately, we cannot accept anything that's not published in a reliable source. If you are able to find multiple reliable sources indicating her birth year is 1938, then our policies tell us we would list her birth year as "1938 or 1942", since there would be a conflict in the sources. I do need to inform you that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You can find out more about how to disclose by clicking on this link. I'll also leave more information on your talk page regarding how to navigate conflicts of interest. Take care --tony 13:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Can Someone get two barnstars for the same thing? I'm not sure, but whenever I decide to patrol recent changes, you are there! I'll try to revert some edits, but you will have beaten me to it! Gets a bit annoying sometimes! But thank you for your work! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --tony 02:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Disappointed

I find it hard that you would ban someone from editing because they did not put a source. I understand that they are important and useful, but I can't get my head around you banning someone for it. I am a new editor and other people like me don't know how to put down sources. I understand your work and am grateful for you being here for all editors... but please ask questions and be less strict before you ban someone. Thanks! Accccepting (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I did stop Accccepting (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Accccepting. Sorry if that was harsh -- we use different language depending on how many times we've needed to talk with you about it. Thank you for stopping, though -- on Wikipedia, things we post need to be verifiable using inline citations. I noticed you were removing content that had sources and replacing it with content that didn't, and in the last two weeks or so you've received a few notices about that. The wording of my message was only intended to try to discourage you from continuing adding unsourced content while deleting sourced content. I'm going to leave this link for you here, it has a lot of great information about how to cite sources: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you for your message, and take care --tony 21:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying so quickly! I've been waiting for a week on the Haiti talk page for an answer. Accccepting (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way my question on the Haiti talk page is that should Emmanuel Vertilaire and Louis Gerald Gilles have their own Wiki pages? Because they are important people in the council... it would be like if a world leader didn't have a wiki page. Thanks! Accccepting (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Accccepting -- if you feel they meet the notability requirements and are interested in creating Wikipedia pages for them, I encourage you to check out this link to learn how to create a draft. Take care --tony 21:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to chime in but you where not blocked. You got 3 warnings, thats different to being blocked, you can still edit. Also note if you where blocked (different to a ban) it would only be temporary unless you where a repeat offender in which case the block length would go up. Not putting sources is a pretty light offence but if you keep doing it something needs to be done. Dont worry your warnings will reset quickly. Just chiming in cause I feel you may have misunderstood. Ask any questions if you need! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Huijsen

I removed a blurb (considered best in the world, etc.) and gave reason as to why it was removed -- none of the sources stated explicitly state that he is one of the best CBs in the world -- just that he is either coveted or that his value is rising. One of the sources is also a fan site, which is not a neutral or reliable source. I'm not sure why it was not considered adequate info. 2A00:79E0:2EEA:8:F0B5:381E:FA9A:3956 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm restoring your edit -- I'll leave a message at your talk page. tony 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Everything I said was 100% accurate and already covered by existing citations. Did you just revert it because you’re politically biased? 2600:1012:B10E:F93A:E516:1AA:411A:A344 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but the edit you made of [t]he resulting debate went viral largely due to the patronizing and condescending nature of Gallagher’s accusation and Fifield’s sharp, composed response may violate our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. We have to be careful to not phrase things in a way which makes it seem like Wikipedia itself has a certain point-of-view -- for instance, we obviously don't want people to believe Wikipedia itself is deciding that someone was patronizing and condescending or sharp [and] composed. If you can find reliable sources which clearly phrase things this way, you could rephrase it similar to "The Guardian characterized their accusations as 'condescending'" or "Reuters characterized their response as 'sharp and composed'", along with adding an inline citation to that quote. If the opinion is widely held, then reliable sources should be easy to find. Thank you for reaching out, and take care --tony 03:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion is widely held on almost every public comment/discussion board regarding the video. I’m certain I can find articles characterizing it that way but that doesn’t reflect public opinion. And let’s be real, just because something’s a valid and popular opinion doesn’t mean news outlets are going to report it. I’ll probably only find articles from explicitly right wing biased news outlets, which will surprise nobody that they characterized it that way. 2600:1012:B10E:F93A:E516:1AA:411A:A344 (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]