User talk:Varoon2542

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]
Welcome!

Hello, Varoon2542, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the request for "speedy deletion". I just created my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs)
Hi Varoon2542, sorry about that - I've fixed it for you. Welcome to Wikipedia ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varoon2542, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Varoon2542! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

September 2022

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mauritians of Indian origin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Satrar (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Even if the whole section is unsourced as you stated, in the case of Wesley Said, his own article has no source material on him having indian ancestry. If I may take the example of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and Vikash Dhorasoo, their respective articles have the references necessary to attest of their indian ancestry
So may I know on what basis you reverted my edits?
Looking forward to your answer
I don't see any problem in adding names but first you should consider reading WP:RS and then adding a reliable source for the names you add to the article. From my side you can add as many names as you want but don't forget to add a reliable source. Do ping my name also once you are addressing me. Satrar (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Satrar I'm a little bit perplexed. You are asking me to add a reliable source for a name I want to add but I never added any name... I REMOVED one because the article of the footballer didn't have any reliable source to justify the presence of his name in that list. You are accusing me of doing something that you did and threatening me with an edit war warning. This isn't even remotely fair or coherent
I agree with ZLEA that if you want to readd a name, then it's up to you to furnish the reliable source. All the other names at least have reliable sources on their respective main articles. Varoon2542 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA May I have your arbitration? Varoon2542 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to why you chose me, as I don't recall encountering you before (correct me if I'm wrong). Given my history with Satrar, I'm probably not the best person to ask for arbitration, but I'll give my two cents anyway. While this is not proper usage of the citation needed template (Template:Unreferenced section is the proper template for this case), I agree with Satrar that the section should be sourced. However, because it is currently unsourced, Varoon2542 can justifiably remove Wesley Saïd, or any other name, from the list. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Therefore, if any names are removed from the list ,they should only be re-added if a reliable source is provided.
I would also like to say that the edit war warning is a bit aggressive, considering no one has broken WP:3RR and Satrar has performed two reverts while Varoon2542 has performed only one. - ZLEA T\C 00:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

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. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Satrar (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.105 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well this escalated. I'll be watching this case very closely. - ZLEA T\C 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA As you may have noticed, all the pages where my edits are being reverted, be it Wesley Said, Nayyara Noor or Fly Anakin, the reverts are made mostly by unidentified editors. How can I be bullied in such a way in full impunity? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's most likely a single editor hopping IPs. If it continues, the best course of action would be to request page protection. - ZLEA T\C 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry it has come to this but I need your help to rein in on Satrar. He is now undoing my edits on "Mauritius". He is not even interested about the article just looking for what I'm editing and undoing it. How should I proceed to have him leave me alone? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Satrar is actually correct at Mauritius. You are changing the content without changing the reference. My bad, I missed the ref. Can you provide evidence of a pattern of hounding? - ZLEA T\C 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The former reference I disagreed with is from a UK travel guide and my reference is the 2011 Census. The census figures have been used since their publication before the recent modification. I've been editing that page for years...
As far as hounding is concerned, he did it on the following pages, Wesley Said, Nayaraa Noor, Mauritian of Indian Descent, Fly Anakin and now Mauritius. It all started on the Nayaara Noor article which is the most obvious example. Sources n°1 and 2 were already used as reference. I merely added additional information from the same sources and he said they were unreferenced. I kept asking him to read the articles but he undid the edits saying they were unreferenced. The same article spoke of the artist being renowned in the "subcontinent", I edited it to "pakistan" as no source material from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. documents her life, work and death. She might have been a household name in Pakistan, but unless proven otherwise, she was unknown in the rest of the subcontinent. I believe he didn't take that well. I rest my case on this issue. Nothing more to add. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take this issue to WP:AN/I. - ZLEA T\C 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba May I have your arbitration, please ? He is like stalking me Varoon2542 (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The complaint was made by 116.71.160.23. It seems to me that 116.71.160.23 is just a single editor hopping IPs. I find it a bit rich that an unidentified editor who doesn't even have a user page is complaining against me. The only identified one is Satrar
I've already sought arbitration for what I feel is hounding (please look above). I'm also keen on settling this issue. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Satrar (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Killing of Nahel Merzouk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. 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) 06:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

[edit]

Could you please have a look at the page mentioned in the section title (an explanatory essay on en.wp policy), as well as the page concerning restoring challenged edits: WP:ONUS (policy). I see you've been warned about edit warring above. I'd suggest that making use of the talk page leads to better results. As it happens I also live in France and have since well before the 2005 French riots. I'm also quite aware of the RS press coverage of these events. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been warned about edit warring too. Pot calling the kettle black?
Should I point out that you have been chastised for playing down the antisemitic nature of the sentence "we will make a Shoah"?
The information in the lead corresponds to the sources. They stay until consensus says otherwise. So far, you're the only one complaining Varoon2542 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are edit warring now to insert a grammatical error. Note that "a 17-year-old" is a substantive noun. You are mistaken that "adjective order" applies in such a case. As it happens, I'm an English teacher. :)
In the Marianne article you added after I removed the TOI article which said the reports were unconfirmed, the head of the CRIF says he doesn't want to play up conflict between ethnic groups because of a kid spray-painting something on a wall. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was born and bred in Mauritius where I passed my, Cambridge organised, A Levels in English. Now, I'm a lawyer in France. :)
I stand by that order. Now, I won't be fighting over it. Let us see what those who have english as first language think of it
What the head of the CRIF says or doesn't say to downplay an antisemitic tag doesn't make the tag less antisemitic. On the contrary, it speaks a lot about his fear. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that that was indeed what he sought to convey. Concerning your grammar mistake, I am a native speaker: it is a very common French mistake to say "a French" for "a French person". The rules on this are inconsistent depending on nationality. No biggy, it will get fixed... probably by somebody adding man, teenager, youth, or boy again.  :)
Would I be correct that you do not intend to defend your choice to focus on "Arabo-Islamic" integration on the talk page despite the policy explanations furnished above? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not pick the term "French" instead of "Frenchman", "boy", "man" or "youth". I think "French youth" would have been more appropriate
I merely corrected the order. I'm quite surprised that an english teacher and, even more so, a native speaker is questioning the order. The order depends on intrinsicality. A person's age change ultimately, a nationality generally doesn't. It's a horrible rainy day not a rainy horrible day just like it's a seven year old american boy not an american seven year old boy.
I've already defended my stand on the addition of "arabo-islamic integration" on the talk page. The sources point to the nature of the debate being focussed on the ethnic and religious origins of the shooting victim and, later on, rioters. Whether you agree with the nature of the debate or not is irrelevant. The debate took place with these discussed. That's the information. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The sources other than Indian express one are not considered reliable. Also, be informed of wiki policies. You can't decide anything, you need to write what source say. Admantine123 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you decide that only one source is reliable?
The sources you are criticising are mauritian sources and the one you are backing is an indian one. What is this? Indian imperialism?
Should I remind you that the article is on a MAURITIAN statesman?
I'm saying this for the last time. Indian constitutional provisions have no relevancy in Mauritius. There are no forward, backward, scheduled caste, schedules tribe in Mauritian law, societal discourse, anywhere. Just because one clueless indian journalist used one of those terms, doesn't make it more relevant in the mauritian context.
If you knew anything about Mauritius, you would have known that in Mauritius what you indians call forward castes are termed "Grand nations" and what you call backward castes are called "Ti nations" but you don't speak Mauritian creole, do you? What do you exactly know about Mauritius?
One of the sources I inserted is the only comprehensive research work on the issue of castes in Mauritius. It was done by a french professor and it's available in English. The second one is by a Mauritian researcher. Give them a read
BTW, you are not only edit warring, you are also removing sources that go against your narrative which is dishonest and malicious
If you want to disprove my point then go find a Mauritian article that makes reference to indian terminology in Mauritius. Feel free to learn french fast to read "Le Mauricien" or you could read some of the articles published in English by "L'Express"
I don't care much about your threats. If you wish to have me banned, move the issue on the relevant page and let us see what the administrators think. Varoon2542 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae Hello, I'm not asking for help right now but in case the matter were to escalate, I would eventually like your arbitration. I'm acting in good faith. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I haven't looked into this in detail, but as a newer editor it is often a good idea to follow the advice of more experienced editors. If someone with 19,000 edits is telling you that you're using unreliable sources, then maybe you are using unreliable sources and should avoid placing those in articles. Try to be a sponge until you get a bit more experience. There's a lot to learn. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

[edit]
The Current Events Barnstar
In recognition of your contributions to the article Killing of Nahel Merzouk. --Cdjp1 talk 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you !
That's very kind of you. Truly appreciate it :) Varoon2542 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus into Kashmir division. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum 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. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake ! I don't actually understand how some of these technical issues work. I'm working on it. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler explanation: When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request restoration of some of my editing privileges. Thank you. You have come up in the context of you interactions with SashiRolls. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunak

[edit]

Sorry about the revert there. I misread your summary. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, my edit was later reverted by someone else since long now :) Varoon2542 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir division

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kashmir division have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please note that the lead sentence and infobox maps are an aspect of the WikiProjects India-Pakistan-China consensus of August 2019. We cannot tamper with them unless we have created a new consensus. Also, we can't do a data dump of the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus into this article. By a long-maintained consensus only highly distilled summaries of a few sentences can go into Jammu and Kashmir (state) if there is consensus for them, not into this article, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan (October 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The judiciary, political and media impact of this rape and murder case is similar to that of Lola Daviet whose murder has a dedicated article. I fail to understand why these two cases should be treated differently Varoon2542 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this is worth an article, why not try to write it up properly, ending your sentences with periods, formatting the date correctly, and providing at the very least the title and source for your sole source rather than a bare link? Did I miss your name in the AFD over on fr.wp, which looks to be headed towards no consensus... despite its 30 references? I think KylieTastic was right to decline your draft in its current state, had it been properly written they might have had a different opinion. Note that under no circumstances should this be added to mainspace until the question of the OQTF and the administrative battles is added to the sole nationality of the aggressor, which of course is, by itself, not the issue. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You draft as submitted does not show that the impact or notability is of a similar level as you say, or more important at a level that takes it above the Wikipedia notability level. Unfortunately we live in a world where a young woman being raped and killed is, while abhorrent, no longer notable in itself. Note that the first three sources of Killing of Lola Daviet are The New York Times, the BBC and the Guardian followed by many other good sources. If this event is impactful as you say other major sources will have covered it. If you add a couple of those, and preferably some more content, it would more likely be accepted. At the moment you have two short sentences saying she was killed and one source, which is far from the depth of content and sourcing of Killing of Lola Daviet. One source to start you off is this. Lastly, you called Taha Ouadarit "her murderer" but as far as I can see he is still just a suspect. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the record, your single source failed verification for the suspect's nationality, as the source does not mention it, though it does mention the OQTF. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ramban, Doda and Poonch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan (November 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
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! 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Mauritius, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're biased like your fellow countryman
46% of all foreign nationals in Mauritius are Bangladeshi citizens
That's a sourced, notable fact
How is that a point of view ?
I'm not going to wait for consensus when the only two people who have an issue with this information happen to be Bangladeshis
I don't actually understand why this statistic bothers you ? Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country ?
You aren't even interested in improving the Mauritius article, your only point of interest is the removal of one particular information that, unsurprisingly, has a link to you Varoon2542 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provide me 2-3 reliable and independent sources (without primary and secondary) that say that 46% of all foreign nationals in Mauritius are Bangladeshi citizens.
Don't personally attack on Wikipedia, saying, Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country ?". Follow WP:NOPA. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"reliable and independent sources"? Like the 2022 NATIONAL CENSUS ? What can be more reliable ?
You're clearly completely clueless on the content on the article
Hello, User talk:El C, I'm not against third party abitration. What do you think ? Is the census a reliable source? Varoon2542 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that census reference carefully. Yes, the census is a reliable source, but every country has expats and immigrants; it’s not necessary to mention particular one country percentages in the infobox as your citation mentions this information for more than 17 countries. But can be written inside the article. (the Indian national percentage is bigger than the Bangladeshi one, as you are saying 46% is Bangladeshi [page-143 of your citation]) Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned it in the infobox, it was in the body of the article as a small paragraph of the demographics section
I do agree though that I inferred, in the infobox, the skewing of the religious figures from these statistics. The census makes no mention of the religious composition of the bangladeshi immigrants so I could have overread this but I didn't see why the religious composition of factory workers from Bangladesh should be any different from the national statistics of Bangladesh
There is no visible impact of the presence of Indian nationals in Mauritius, especially since they occupy more diverse professions, while the impact of bangladeshis can be felt with the introduction of a formerly not spoken language, Bengali
I don't mind mentioning the percentage of Indian nationals in Mauritius, if it is a noteworthy information, I just have to calculate it Varoon2542 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jolielover. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nepo baby, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jolielover♥talk 15:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Mauritius shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

As I've told you before, adding the passage you keep adding there is simply bad writing. You've tried justifyimg it by pointing out bad writing else, but that isn't a justification. I've pointed out ways you can make it work and, since you seem simply not willing to follow that guidance, next steps you can take if you want to pursue a consensus somehow. Lurking for months and then adding the text from scratch as though the dispute had disappeared and giving the same justification that wasn't satisfactory during the previous discussion is not one of those steps. Largoplazo (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i)
"Lurking for months"
Those suffering from paranoia should seek therapy
I don't lurk, I've got a life and unlike you, I'm not obsessed to the point of reverting edits within minutes. That actually says more about you.
ii)
Now, on the edits themselves. I didn't include the information you are desperately trying to remove. I merely reformulated it months ago.
You removed it and I pointed out the inconsistency with other country articles
You never furnished a valid reason for maintaing such an inconsistency
You brought the issue on the talk page but it seems that noone was interested in the subject
You are right on one point. One should wait on consensus
But as the information was there first, before you removed it, the consensus should be on your deletion not on its inclusion
While the imaginary debate keeps raging on the talk page, there is no reason to delete it
Now excuse me, I've got some lurking to do... Varoon2542 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'm glad you contacted me
I asked an admin, Bagumba, for help
Can the "Christianity in India" article be semi-protected, at least to avoid edits by unconfirmed editors ?
Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Varoon2542. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Killing of Philippine Le Noir de Carlan, 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) 07:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mauritians of Indian origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhojpuri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam in Mauritius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]