This is an archive of past discussions about User:VarunFEB2003. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please see the group's "To do" section. You may work accordingly to ensure group's progress. To unsubscribe, remove your username from the participants list.
This seems a bit over the top. You could have just said "converted e/ls to refs, general cleanup". That summary makes you look angry and indeed personally offended by the article. CrowCaw16:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Crow: I actually indeed was it took so much time just because a user went to create his first article without reading WP:My First Article! That's why I was angry at that time but'll take care in the future to be calm while typing! VarunFEB200318:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
We were all newbies once. See also WP:BITE. A new editor who gets yelled at for something simple is likely to leave for good, and we will have lost a potentially great editor over not knowing all the rules on day 1. That harms Wikipedia more than page vandalism, because you can't just revert a use who was chased off the project. CrowCaw18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That's an old discussion after which I have realized the mistakes I was making and corrected them. I realized that edit just now so sorry for that! Now I investigate each undo I make which I wasn't previously doing. As mentioned in section above I take care now. --VarunFEB200313:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Reference titles
Please use the actual title of the source in references - this is very important, because it's how people are able to track down the references if they need to. In the {{cite web}} template you can, if you want to, add a "language=" parameter with the language of the reference; if you feel particularly ambitious you might be able to translate the title into English using the parameter "trans-title=", but that of course assumes that you know the language well enough to translate it, and I don't think it's a very commonly used parameter. In any case, "not English" is not appropriate as a reference title, unless the source actually has that title. Cheers, --bonadeacontributionstalk17:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bonadea: If you see that edit I made was using The Visual Editor which has an extremely great automatic reference info generator. That auto system produced that title (not me directly) but I'll look into it and correct it if not done already. I'll take care in the future too! VarunFEB200318:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The tool is clearly not all that great if it made that kind of error, though :-) Thanks for the explanation! I've cleaned up the reference and a few others as well. Thanks for saying you'll keep it in mind - that's really the important thing, to be aware of potential problems so we can avoid them. Cheers, --bonadeacontributionstalk18:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Word-level diffs now work in longer paragraphs. [1]
Interactive maps now have a frame by default. This is to make them look like other multimedia objects. This affects all Wikivoyages, the Catalan, Hebrew, Macedonian Wikipedias and Meta. [2]
When you preview the MediaWiki:Captcha-ip-whitelist page it will show a validation output of the listed IP addresses instead of the list of addresses only. This can help you to identify if your whitelist rules will work or not. [3]
Changes this week
You will be able to use <maplink> on all Wikipedias. It creates a link to a full screen map. [4][5]
Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully send out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. [6][7]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 September. It will be on all wikis from 8 September (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
(talk page watcher) @NQ: I'd just like to wade in and assure you that Varun cannot see your email address. They may have been referring to the fact that they can see you have an email assigned to your account (as otherwise the page would not have loaded) -- samtartalk or stalk12:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Yeah, I get that the subject wrote the article, but that's not a reason to speedily delete it. The article says that the subject is a professor at the Paris Diderot University, a leading French university. That is clearly an assertion of significance, so A7 doesn't apply. AfD is the proper venue to decide other reasons for deleting the article. Hut 8.521:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, do you actually know what "per nom" means? Please stop voting in AFDs where you're the nominator; it's disruptive as it creates the appearance of a consensus where none necessarily exists, and annoying for the closing admin as it means one more line of cruft which has to be disregarded. I know you've already been told not to do this. As has been pointed out to you many, many times, AGF has a limit and you're rapidly reaching the point when we're going to stop turning a blind eye to your "I know I've been told to stop doing something but I'm going to carry on doing it anyway" tendency; yes, most of the timesinks you create by your constant refusal to follow instructions are relatively trivial, but they all add up. "Ignore all rules" doesn't translate as "do whatever the hell you feel like". ‑ Iridescent21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I particularly voted in this AfD because I was ready to Draftify rather than delete. But also had no problems in deletion. I didn't know how to convey that point so I voted. As per nom. was because of my no "problems" with deletion. I actually listen to you guys Iridescent but maybe sometimes I may have raised arguments because I felt what I was doing was right. I do believe in IAR and translate it as if some policy is not allowing me to contribute to the encyclopedia I ignore it. Hope I am right! It seems I have been refusing to agree too much which now pointed out shall be taken further care of. And please do tell me how should I convey my Draftify point in the afd. And extremely sorry Hut 8.5 for producing it for CSD, I don't why I did it because now I I don't do that. Pinging IridescentHut 8.5 Sorry Thanks and many Regards VarunFEB200314:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.
August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.
Hello VarunFEB2003! Welcome to WikiProject Food and Drink! We are a group of editors who work together to better organize information in articles related to food and drink.
The goals of WikiProject Food and Drink:
Consensus about the organization of food and drink related articles.
Coordination of editing on food, drink, and restaurant related articles.
Categorization of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
Creation, expansion, and maintenance of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
This is really bitey. First, if an editor says they wrote something assume good faith and believe them, don't say "no you didn't". Accounts aren't people, people are people. Second, I notified Celevillain about their potential COI in writing what seemed to be an autobiography of Charles-Edouard Levillain (as you should have done, really, before escalating it to AfD). As it turns out they don't have a COI and simply named their account after the article they intended to write (a common mistake by newcomers), so they did exactly the right thing and made a new account. Switching accounts is not sockpuppetry and disclosing previous accounts is neither mandatory or particularly useful when the previous account has a grand total of 1 edit.
I am sure you thought you were trying to do the right thing in enforcing the guidelines, but in future please do try to remember that editors are more important than rules, and nothing scares off new editors like a string of bureaucratic warnings. Joe Roe (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Is that bity? I just mentioned that is this your other account then please declare it because it was confusing when he said this article I wrote. I shall though keep in mind what you said but why isn't it important to declare another account you have. It becomes confusing. I'll better stay away! VarunFEB200306:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that the English Wikipedia is international and used mainly by native English speakers. The culture in some countries that use, or partly use English can be very different. Please adjust your comments in order to accommodated these differences. Also, please refrain from commenting in areas that are generally reserved for administrators. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: First of all sorry for my broken English. Secondly please refrain from commenting in areas that are generally reserved for administrators are AfD's administrative areas. VarunFEB200305:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Your English may not have the required level for judging the quality of articles. It might get better when you are older and finish school. Anyone can comment at AfD but please refrain from commenting at WP:PERM. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok I'll take care at WP:PERM. Are you referring to my judgement of the Charles Levellian (sorry if I wrote the wrong spelling) article? It was in a quite poor state when created but now it seems okay because of which I was thinking of withdrawing the nomination. And maybe I made some mistakes but I speak English very fluently thanks VarunFEB200306:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikimedia Commons app for Android can now show nearby places that need photos. [9]
The RevisionSlider will be available as a beta feature on all wikis from 13 September. This will make it easier to navigate between diffs in the page history. [12]
A new user right will allow most users to change the content model of pages. [13][14]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 September. It will be on all wikis from 15 September (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
When you search on the Wikimedia wikis in the future you could see results from sister projects in your language. You can read more and discuss how this could work.
Hi. Just a reminder that you can't use A7 (lack of significance) on schools or other educational establishments. Exactly what those are isn't quite certain, but schools, colleges and universities definitely are. I deleted it as spam, anyway. Peridon (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Varun, I know you have been told this before but please slow down and read WP:ATA before making any more AfDs. "Clearly non-notable" and "Is this notable?" or not even valid arguments for deletion, never mind valid nominations. Before you nominate, you need to do sufficient research to articulate at least a basic argument for deletion (e.g. "I could only find <X> mentions in reliable sources", "Google Scholar only shows <Y> citations for this academic."), and please don't waste valuable volunteer and admin time by nominating articles you're not even sure should be deleted! Joe Roe (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
All others have either got delete votes or shall soon get because they do lack things for which I AfD'ed. Clarification - "Is this notable" was used only 1 once" VarunFEB200313:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The other specific nomination I was referring to was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone of the Guanches ("Clearly non-notable"), but I've been running into your hasty nominations all over the place for past couple of weeks. You are talking like you haven't really read or understood the deletion policy. We don't delete articles because they "lack things", because Wikipedia is a work in progress. We delete articles because it's fundamentally impossible to make them conform to the core content policies (at least at the present time). So, for example, a person is either notable enough to satisfy WP:V or they are not. No amount of copy-editing makes them notable; even if the article is in a bad state, it is up to you to do the research and decide whether the topic has the potential to make a good encyclopaedia article. Joe Roe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said before (please do actually read the policies and guidelines I'm linking, in this case WP:JNN, it's important to understand them thoroughly if you're set on doing this kind of maintenance work), "clearly non-notable" is not a valid argument for deletion. As a matter of fact, since it's a piece of cultural heritage, it probably is intrinsically notable per WP:GEOLAND, but that's the beside the point: before you nominate you need to do some research and present some evidence for why the article should be deleted, i.e. why it is not notable. Joe Roe (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
If I may offer a suggestion, spend some time only editing and improving articles for a while. Just click the "Random Article" link and see what you can do to improve what comes up. Leave it to others to worry about deletion for a bit. The more you edit articles, the better you will get at recognizing what belongs or doesn't belong, and what can and cannot be improved. You've got 5,700+ edits, but less than 10% of those are to articles. In fact, you've got 5 times as many edits to your user pages as you do to articles. Remember the primary reason we're all here is to build an encyclopedia. Everything else (designing templates, fancy signatures, guestbooks, etc) is secondary (or lower). You've got great enthusiasm, and if you turn that towards article work for a while, great things are possible! CrowCaw14:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Crow I just want to stay here and contribute in whatever way I can. Some while ago I learnt the difference between CSD and AfD(meaning when to use) now I'll also learn when not to AfD thanks a lot for your suggestion. VarunFEB200314:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Varun, I must strongly support this "slow down" message. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CST Complex is simply disruptive. The article is perfectly encyclopedic and has a good peer-reviewed source. It had only been created for two minutes when you tagged it; you have no idea what the creator might have been planning next (but in this case the article was already fine). It is very bad to take an article to AFD just because you don't understand it. Please stop running around playing slash and burn. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for withdrawing it, Varun. But please also note that putting cleanup tags on articles just two minutes after they were created is hostile and bitey. The author may still be working on an article. I have removed the tags you put on CST Complex and Mike Schlappi for this reason. I have the impression you're trying to control what other people are allowed to create. Sorry, but you aren't nearly ready to do that. Please stop it, and create some content of your own. --Stfg (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I must chime in again as well. Varun, you really need to read the deletion criteria, both speedy and afd versions. "Too technical", "page is a mess", etc are not valid criteria for deletion. Additionally, unless you're an expert on the topic, stating that I would like it to be deleted as it cannot be improved enough to make it into a stand alone article is not a strong argument. On CSD, you should probably not be using G6 criteria at this point. CSD is intended for a very tight set of circumstances, and making up your own reasons under G6 flies in the face of those. As I suggested above, please slow down and stop worrying about deletions for now, but go improve some articles. CrowCaw18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Crow, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Stfg, and Joe Roe:Dropping all further maintainance tasks I am dropping all maintainance tasks I had been carrying out till now. No more of this I'll focus on content and some other areas and not new page patrolling. You are not going to get any further deletions proposed by me as part of my patrolling. Thanks. I shall now focus on expanding the encyclopaedia. Thanks and Regards VarunFEB200304:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the best course would be a merge. I suggest using it to start a section on Dialects. U'd have done it myself, but it would be better done by someone who knows the language DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Nepali language would be a better place to merge it into (in my opinion), especially since the dialect is mentioned in the Ethnologue entry for Nepali [15], but I'd like to see some sources. It's hard to know what is fact and what is merely the author's own opinion - probably some of each, but without sources, who can tell. If it is still unsourced in a couple of weeks' time or so, I'd probably simply redirect it to Nepali language. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What template? As far as I can see you didn't have to remove anything. People spend a lot of time, putting a lot of efforts into making articles. It's discouraging when someone who obviously didn't even take the time to read what I wrote simply rummages around in the article for not particular reason. There was a line of thought between the text and the galler, for example. Paying a bit of attention is never a bad idea in my now quite considerable experience. Have a great life. Yakikaki (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I did not mean a merge into the general article on Nepal, but into the article on the language: Nepali language. which has at the moment no section on dialects. It's always good to try to find a merge instead of deletion, but it takers some care to find the most specific place for the material. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Too speedy
This tagging occurred too quickly. To be sure, the page the user had created was incorrect, but you tagged it for deletion within 1 minute of its creation, without giving the user time to correct their mistake. In general, for cases other than blatant spam or blatant copyright violations, I use the rule of thumb that a page shouldn't be tagged for deletion until at least 15 minutes after its creation. Doing otherwise, especially when a new user is involved, can be very bitey. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It is completely test. He will not correct it. Moreover I am not doing any maintainance so I didn't know that it was created a min ago I came across through the search button. It is clearly a test as an input box isn't required in an article VarunFEB200314:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Several pages (such as Special:NewPages and Wikipedia:New pages patrol) advise patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog - that is, work from the oldest towards the newest. This means that people will have a chance to work on their test pages very short articles, and hopefully, bring them to a good-enough standard that will avoid any deletion attempt. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You said in the section #Slow down above :"I am dropping all maintainance tasks I had been carrying out till now. No more of this I'll focus on content and some other areas and not new page patrolling. You are not going to get any further deletions proposed by me as part of my patrolling. ", yet here you are again the same day creating exactly the same problem by tagging pages for deletion immediately after they have been created. Were you deliberately lying to us? How are we to assume good faith? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, on this occasion I think Varun is correct. Anyone who thinks otherwise might like to look at the edits by Adacpunk (not pinged) in here. That guy is clearly here to make a spectacle of himself, and WP:NOTSUICIDE. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You have been advised that you are not ready for doing maintenance tasks on Wikipedia. Tou have repeatedly continued to patrol, and to avoid scrutiny by not using the usual tools. As a result you are still making too many errors. There are plenty of other things you can be doing on Wikipedia until you are much older and able to properly read and understand the instructions. Please stop patrolling pages now. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do remove your name. Until you know what articles are usually going to pass AfD there is no possible ay you can give appropriate advice at AfC, because the key question at AfC is whether it is likely that the article would be accepted if brought to a deletion discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and also please gain some experience in article creation. If you create some articles, you will see what others have to say about them. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
As the bot will shortly archive it, drawing your attention to my comments here. Will you please stop trying to intervene in administrative areas you don't understand; as a request for a reduction in protection, this was correctly formatted and in the correct section. Nobody wants to lose a potentially productive contributor, but when you're wandering around giving incorrect advice and making disruptive comments to the degree that you do, there comes a point when the productive edits you make are outweighed by the work expended in cleaning up after you, and in the opportunity cost of editors who get discouraged or confused by your incorrect advice.
Wikipedia is an academic resource, not a videogame, and you don't gain any kind of bonus points for participating in obscure areas. The admins welcome genuine help, but only when it's actually helpful, and (as has been told to you repeatedly) you don't understand Wikipedia's technical setup or administrative structure well enough to be giving commentary in administrative areas at the moment. If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, find a topic which interests you and write sourced and neutral content about it. Don't try to intervene in administrative areas unless you actually understand the issue under discussion, don't offer commentary on articles written by other people unless you feel reasonably confident that you understand the article topic at least as well as the authors of the page, don't cite any policy without having read the policy in question to the extent that you would feel confident summarising the policy in your own words. I know you're keen and want to help, and we don't want to lose you, but you've spent most of your Wikipedia career ignoring a lot of warnings from a lot of people, and there comes a point when if you're not willing to stop being disruptive, someone else will have to stop it for you. ‑ Iridescent08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Varun. You're right -- the article was already semi-protected. However, this particular request was not for a reduction in protection level but for a reduction in protection length. The article relates to a particular event, so the level of disruption is likely to drop off soon after the event ends. Before Iridescent altered the protection, it was set to stay in place for several months after the event ended. Hope that helps! Regards, — OliORPyfan!13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please gain more experience with basic editing before taking on expert tasks like copy-editing Requests. You claimed that you had copy-edited an article, but the only changes you made were to column headers. That is simply not acceptable and shows either a lack of competence or an unwillingness to read and understand basic instructions. (Or malevolence, which I am supposed to reserve as a final option.) The Requests page has a link at the top to a page that explains how to copy edit; if you are unwilling or unable to read it and follow its basic guidance, please stay away from copy-editing tasks.
I recommend that you find a topic that you are passionate about, then find articles on that topic that you are able to expand using proper English and reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
