Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Thanks for helping untangle Shyam Singh (politician) vs Shyam Singh Rana. Are they both current MLAs, or does the infobox of the former also need corrected? Oravrattas (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert and have no special knowledge, but the quick research I did suggested that the "original" (born 1948) was no longer in office and the "new" has just been elected. The assembly website shows them as two different people with two different names. However, see https://www.news18.com/elections/assembly/haryana/shyam-singh-rana-s07aed2008a010e2024c004/ which gives an age of 76 for Shyam Singh Rana, and https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/former-inld-mla-shyam-singh-rana-joins-bjp/articleshow/111526027.cms which describes the 2014 MLA as moving to the BJP in 2024. So, the same person after all? Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ACNA (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. JFHutson (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially Bareela not Barila Sharif. So, kindly revert your edits to my last one edits. And redirect Barila Sharif to Bareela. Behappyyar (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained (briefly, so I'll make it clear here), do not cut the contents of one article and paste them over another article. This is a cut'n'paste move and, amongst other problems it loses the attribution for the authors that wrote the original article. It makes it appear that you wrote the article yourself, which is not the case. It is not possible to move Barila Sharif over Bareela since both articles have multiple edits, so you will have to make a requested move. Given that both articles gave existed for some years and have no-trivial edit history, I would suggest that such a move requires discussion first where interested parties can check that both articles really are about the same place and which should be the ultimate location. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are we going to do about this chap and his nonsense edit in the Cassiopeia entry? I don't think he even understands the text he is trying to insert. He has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Should we do it again? Cheers, Skeptic2 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page first. I've put a standard warning on the user talk page. You could start a section on the Cassiopeia talk page, for all the good it will do, just to show good faith. Otherwise, I've reverted the latest drivel. Feel free to report any further reverts. Lithopsian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would have been a lot more inclusive if you created a talk page. Sorry if I can not express what I am trying to add. I did include 4 different references. Would Wikipedia consider that vandalism? That I am not trying to add in "good faith".

I know people who were banned on social media. Some are back. I know people who were banned from coffee counters. They "won" the war.

Should "we" do it again? Take credit for your actions. You're not Lithopsian. Consensus is Wikipedia.

Did you really need to use the derogatory drivel? No need to use insulting terms. See Wikipedia:Civility

"Don't make snide comments."

I'd say "Patent nonsense" is the correct term to consider here.

The Wikipedia page indicates: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it"

I'd be comfortable if the addition was removed with the explanation: "Cassiopea was not used by Jean Picard to determine "an arc of the meridian"

Try this if your willing. I googled: "picard" Cassiopeia

AI response:

"In 1669, Captain Jean-Luc Picard used the constellation Cassiopeia to determine latitude while measuring an arc of the meridian in France"

Are you saying some form of this google statement is not worthy of the page?

Picard is considered the first to give a realistic measure. He didn't use Leo or Cygnus for a reason. The links explain why.

The long and the short of it. The four articles I referenced have the word Cassiopea in them. Referring to a use of the constellation. Similar to the use of Polaris by navigators. This is a valid addition to the page. If someone with better linguistics chooses to "create" it; instead of spending their time "banning" they're the better person. The article will be better off. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cassiopeia (constellation). Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lithopsian, i am here to advice your recent edits at Theta Carinae were reverted in error due to an edit conflict. Sorry for the incovenience. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's what I thought had happened. All straight now, I think. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on reverting "cut'n'paste" edits, a rule which I find quite unnecessary for short list articles as Nijhawan (surname) anyway, then please at least clean up after yourself. Thanks to your reverts, Wikidata pages are now wrongly linked, the talk pages of Nijhawan (surname) and Nijhawan are messed up, you reverted the style edits I made to the surname list, and you did not even create the move request yourself despite acknowledging that the comet Nijhawan is definitely not worthy of being the primary topic. Instead, you for some reason created Nijhawan (disambiguation), which is completely unnecessary, since the surname list is already on Nijhawan (surname) anyway. I will redirect the disambig to Nijhawan as soon as my move request has gone through. Was it really worth it to create all this chaos, and extra work for other people to fix this choas, just to enforce a rule for the sake of enforcing rules? --CaptainOlimar42 (talk)

I can't help it if you don't understand why not to do cut'n'paste moves. There's no end of help pages about it, I even linked one or two for you. Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't acknowledge that the minor plant (not a comet, actually an asteroid) "is definitely not worthy of being the primary topic"; I just suggested that it was possible. And please don't redirect a page titled Nijhawan (disambiguation) to a page that isn't a disambiguation page; a set index is an article, not a dab page. Lithopsian (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what motivated you to go against an XfD consensus here? As someone getting back into AfD, is there something I should know about when to revert an AfD outcome? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mis-read the outcome. Too much edit-warring in the article! My intention was to revert to the consensus. All straightened out (and protected) now. Lithopsian (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lithopsian, it seems(?) you have refused goodfaith discourse via the Talk Page for the past 7 days and instead appear to now be engaging in an edit war. Since you have ignored all pings and ignored the subsequent proposal for a closer, I am coming to your page in an attempt to gain some understanding.

First, my perspective is that the Supranet page clearly falls under WP:G11/WP:SPIP. This consensus had already been established via 1, 2, 3, and 4. I was the 5th person, out of 5, to recently affirm this consensus. In respect to the original AFD, and accordance with WP:INSTEAD, I redirected the page to VPN. Spam gone.

The first (7 hours later) and second reverts you made provided no substantiative basis to do so. It is essential to minimize disruptions of goodfaith editors. Per WP:BRD-NOT, WP:CIR is a critical requirement for reverts, and as noted in WP:DRNC, one should not revert for "no consensus" without having a substantive objection. For subjects one is ignorant of, the Zero Revert Rule would have been a more collaborative approach. Instead, this style of "Drive-by Reverts" can be easily misconstrued by others as Stonewalling.

You have been the only editor to reject the redirect compromise and to insist on restoring the WP:G11 contents. So far, you have only conveyed that this was done on the basis of procedural formalities; which per WP:5P5 is not a strict requirement. I have pinged you on the talk-page in hopes of getting either (A) a substantive objection based on the topic contents or (B) a substantive objection on how this redirect violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Instead of responding to those pings, on the now 7th day, you have decided to open a second AFD; and instead of focusing on the content, you have used it in some weird attempt to disparage me. I am not sure one can claim someone else as having a refusal to accept consensus position when they themselves have refused all discussion on all positions.

This process is even more awkward, and confusing, given that in your new AFD, you seem to be marginally supporting the WP:G11/WP:SPIP position; and WP:DELETE would still reaffirm the original WP:SPIP/WP:G11 consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamarr81 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go away and stop whining. The article is at AfD again, no thanks to you. Respect the result this time. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]