User talk:FacetsOfNonStickPans: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 6 December 2018

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sports in Jammu and Kashmir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94\|Clubs]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95\|Science fiction + fantasy]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96\|STEM]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97\|The Mediterranean]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018\|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

multiple Undo vs revert

Hi DTM I saw this Not sure why you decided to do 4 UNDOs instead of 1 twinkle revert. Critics will call that efforts to increase WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, Being your well wisher I would recommend using Twinkle revert next time. regards --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Hi. Thanks for mentioning this. I still haven't figured out how to revert or undo multiple edits in one go. I have never done that. Yes, I have reverted edits one at a time, and I have undone edits one at a time... but never multiple ones at the same time. I have twinkle on, but I don't seem to see a revert option with it or maybe I am just overlooking it. (This has nothing to do with edit count since that doesn't interest me too much, but yes, why give a point to the critics.) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

true, FYI, From whatever little i know about you from our few interaction, I am sure you don't care about Editcounts, but like I said, this is something you can be accused of, so lets do it in an expected way. check out Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback. I hope it will save some precious seconds that you can utilize in contributing elsewhere. as always feel free to ask me or WP:HELPDESK if you need any such advice, sometimes even experienced editors like me need to post on helpdesk or WP:VP, regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through this the page - Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback. Thanks again for the help and the reminder about the helpdesk. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cool, for now you can just check the exact section I linked above that has a screenshot as well showing the rollback links, even I have not gone through the full doc, but it would be good to check it out to know all the features it offers. Twinkle is quite user friendly and saves lot of time while maintaining articles. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically read the exact section you linked for now. Understood how to use the rollback feature now and the three different rollback features mentioned. I have noticed the rollback link many times but never used it since I was unsure what exactly would happen and never understood why it was different from the revert option, after reading this it makes much more sense. Yes, Twinkle provides a lot of other features... one at a time. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call in not testing out new things on pages other than the Sandbox. :D . the WP:ROLLBACK's only benefit is it is faster, and you dont get to add an edit summary, if you use ROLLBACK on anything other than "obvious" vandalism, that right can be taken. It is used mostly to mass revert edits by a blocked vandal or sock account. whereas, Twinkle rollback allows us to add an edit summary to explain why we are reverting. Twinkle rollback can be safely used in many other cases (other than obvious vandalism). --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First merge successfully completed

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Good work in learning the Text Merge procedure. Here is something to recharge you after your first merge, cheers Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ 21:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Requesting comment on talk pages for requested move

I see that you are an active indian user and so am requesting a comment on the following talk pages on the requested moves.
Talk:Modi Ministry
Talk:List of committees of the Indian government
Cheers --Politicoindian (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lavanya Rajamani has been accepted

Lavanya Rajamani, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service Award

This editor is a **Journeyman Editor** and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

Based on your contributions so far, Keep it up. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/98|Religion]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/99|Deceased politicians]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|Asia]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

WikiProject AfroCine launches

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian military history task force created

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that the Indian military history working group which was started in June 2016, as a part of the Military History WikiProject's incubator, now graduated into a full-fledged task force. You're receiving this message because you've shown you support previously to the working group, if you wish to be a part of present task force, kindly sign-up on the members page. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: But my name is already in the page you have linked. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for signing up. I actually sent the message to all the previous members. KCVelaga (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: Ah yes. I got that from the "Dear all" :) I was just going through your profile and work on Wikipedia, awesome consistency and work! An inspiration for newbies like me.

Related to the Indian military task force: I wanted to know if it is possible to make the task force, more, how would you say, seem as if something is happening on the project page. It doesn't have to be drastic stuff of course, but even small things. Because just now even without the task force it seems that editors keep editing pages that fall under this WikiProject wonderfully in whatever capacity they can. Unless there is some sort of coordination or if the editors involved keep interacting with the Wikiproject directly, I don't really see the task force coming being as fruitful as compared to everyone just editing articles without the task force. Like I have been attempting to create and edit articles that come under this WikiProject without actually referring it. Yes, if some sort of coordination can be managed, then yes, that would be awesome. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for your kind words and sharing your thoughts (very much thought-provoking). I would like to answer—it will be a big reply, unfortunately I am very sleepy now. So my brain won't allow to do detailed stuff. I'll give you an elaborate reply tomorrow. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: Of course, no problem. Take your time. Cheers DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A good thing to do to get off the ground, would be to rate any unrated articles, and cross check some of the problematic ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Users keep doing their regular editing irrespective whether a project or a task-force exists or not, this is an agreeable fact. But such collaborations help in coordination, mainly to discuss issues about a certain topic area. The Indian task-force, as it is relatively the youngest of all, there is a lot of work to do and there are a lot of opportunities as well. Some these include building quarterly newsletters, editing campaigns, content improvement campaigns etc. I'll be busy until the end of next month, due to my exams. So I will not be able to spare much time on this. Let us plan something significant after that. However, you're free to explore and pursue opportunities anytime. KCVelaga (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: Hope the exams went well! :D Sorry for my even more delayed response. I am replying exactly one month later. Yes, collaborations such as the task force help in coordination as you said above. You had written - "Let us plan something significant after that.". Anything in mind if you are free now? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Hello! Thanks for the ping. Actually I've a couple of things in mind. But let us finish the first before move onto the second one, as it also requires more time investment. The first is conducting a tagging campaign for the new task force. I am not sure if all the articles from South-Asian task force have been checked and tagged for "Indian". Pinging Kges1901 and Adamgerber80 for status, if it hasn't been completely done, we can organise one tag and assess kind of campaign. KCVelaga (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: So the assessment you are talking about is related to the box titled Indian military history task force assessment statistics right?

Currently -

Total articles = 1,423
Total lists = 39
Other pages = 364
ω = 7,437 Ω = 5.087

So say there is this redirect page Operation goodwill which comes under the "Other pages" section in the assessment list. This has no talk page and I guess it falls under this task force... so either the redirect is deleted or the talk page is created with the task force tag... This talk page isn't also tagged - Talk:Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir. So you are talking about things like these? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: I am not sure about the tagging but I have covered some article and this an arduous task given the number of articles under this task-force. Maybe we can tap into the other members of the task-force and see if we can get this started. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you send out messages to other TF members, a tagging drive shouldn't be hard to organize. Tagging is done by adding |Indian=y to the WikiProject Military History template on each talk page, for reference. Kges1901 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: So yes, we can organise a tagging drive. If you are interested to do this, I'll be happy to help. I would first suggest to create a section on the taskforce's talk page and a start discussion with the members about the duration, dates and objectives. Pinging AshLin who previously organised a Tag & Assess drive for WP:IN. Best, KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related to previous discussion - A word of advice. Thanks!

Hi @Adamgerber80:. I was just thinking about the discussion "A word of advice" we had some time back. I have realised that I need to be much more careful with my new articles in mainspace and the subsequent creation:deletion ratio. As per the detailed section "Pages I've created, now deleted, or merged" on my userpage where I analyse this -

Total 7 deletions out of the 50 articles I have created in mainspace as on 23 October 2018. (Excluding redirects) That's a 14% deletion rate so far.

And if I include merges, the ratio goes up a little, (in which I mention you too for the merge part just as reminder, I hope you don't mind). So yes, I understand better now how that if I want to apply for things such as new page reviewer, the number of deleted articles will cause problems. Just now it's okayish.... but have to be careful. Bold and careful. Thanks. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: I think this will improve with time and experience. I would recommend to take the WP:AFC route when you are in doubt. Or ping someone on the task-force if it is an article which comes under the task-forces' purview. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alok Bansal (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Frayae 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). 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alok Bansal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alok Bansal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DiplomatTesterMan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frayae: Hi, I don't think this draft can be sorted out just now (for a few months at least). Should I shift it to my user space or is it ok to leave it in AFC? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: The user who reviewed my AFC above has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. What should I do with my AFC? Resubmit it for review and try again or move it to userspace for now? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, thanks for pinging me. The reasons for blocking of this user is unrelated to your draft. So don't worry about the block. I see the reviewing user has mentioned this reason for declining as lack of notability. so lets take it from where the other reviewer left.

Can you make a comment here along with the sources (to verify) that explains why this subject deserves his own WP:BLP. (see WP:NSOLDIER, WP:NPROF WP:NAUTHOR If you can make a convincing argument based on these polices, some one else can approve the draft based on your argument. There is no hurry, a declined draft can still remain there at the present location for you and others to work until 6 months. If after six months the draft is still not fit for move to the main space only then it will be deleted. Hope I have clarified. please feel free to ask further question if you need more clarification. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you intentionally submitted that draft for a review or it was just a wrong usage of the Template:AFC submission . In my opinion, if you feel the draft is not ready for submission then you should use {{subst:AFC draft}} while submitting instead of {{subst:submit}} because the latter means that the author feels the draft is now complete and ready for mainspace. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Thank you for the detailed reply above. Sorry for the late reply. I took my time to respond here as I was trying to figure out how to respond :D So after agreeing with the reason of the original AFC checker that the article doesn't have enough "secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and that his blocking has nothing to do with the AFC as you clarified, I also considered the points you mentioned - WP:NSOLDIER, WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR. Getting the current article to agree with any of these guidelines would be pushing it. There are mentions of him being in command of two different Indian Navy warships, but I can't seem to find out any sources which say which warships those were. So I can't justify notability even according to WP:NSOLDIER : Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher... since I don't know if it was one of the bigger warships or not.

Therefore I will just leave it in draft for now, and if no good sources arise after a period of time (which I doubt) I will delete the article myself. I had initially not realised that most of the sources I was adding were all primary sources in a way and had rushed the AFC submission, which yes, was intentional at the time. Thanks again for the reply. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan I am glad that you took time to understand and read the links as well. I knew that you might not be aware of these policies, nobody is born with these knowledge, even I had to learn them at some point of time. Your plan for future action makes sense to me. I leave it at your good judgement (which is fast evolving as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to delete it at a later point of time. Cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Shaurya Doval has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shaurya Doval. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

football team

Draft:Jammu and Kashmir football team are you willing to work on this ? take a few days and then let me know. the article is completely unsourced and content is clearly hoax. a candidate for deletion in my opinion. Good catch though. if you arent willing to work on this, please nominate for deletion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I totally forgot about this page!! I will nominate it for deletion. There is hardly anything online about this. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: The page is back! It was created again just 3 days after I deleted it. :D :D Jammu and Kashmir football team... This time I tried looking a bit harder for citations and have found a few. They are all local sources off course. Greater Kashmir and Daily Excelsior are notable enough for JK articles, and since this has to do with sports, nothing controversial, they are good for this article. Will try giving it more shape. That is unless someone else decides to keep it deleted? Actually the entire list of articles on Santosh Trophy teams for each state are problematic in certain ways, but I won't go into that. They're ok staying. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I still believe this is a non (or barely) notable team but at least this is factual article. Good work in finding the sources. Yes let it be.--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shaurya Doval has been accepted

Shaurya Doval, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DiplomatTesterMan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you help out Saquibkhan

I will refrain from engaging him as he has taken a strong dislike to me and is inclined to continue to attack me, out of, kind of, self motivation. Hope he calms down and realizes that this is a collaborative site and everyone is trying to improve articles. --Jaydayal (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydayal: Yup, no problem. Let's all stay focused on just trying to improve Wikipedia with a certain sense of WP:CIVIL. We should edit Wikipedia and feel good ourselves as editors for doing what we do rather than ending up grumpy or dissatisfied, it's a thankless job anyway most of the time. Thanks for the comment and mentioning this :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your submission to The Signpost

Just saw your new contribution, and thanks for that! I can't guarantee we will have enough hands on deck for the upcoming issue to review it properly (we are just over a day from the writing deadline now), but I will try to keep things moving forward. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had an independent reader (not in The Signpost's Newsroom) take a look and their feedback was that it could use an essay-style introduction. Actually the format right now is tweaked from what you submitted; I reordered a paragraph before the first bulleted list, but I think I agree that something succinct basically saying "here is what you will read about in this essay" would help. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Thank you for acknowledging the contribution so fast. I just found the Signpost newsroom and yes, only one day left till the writing deadline. So, it's ok if the article doesn't reach this issue, maybe the next one? The suggestion from the independent reader is a good one, and I will add the essay style intro. The reordering you have done makes sense. Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your piece is approved for publication and has been added to the issue 12 table of contents. Congratulations! There might be a bit more copyediting prior to publication on or about December 2. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work writing Lavanya Rajamani _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, this is obviously a good work, but I've a few suggestions at this point. Here they follow:

Using autofill for references can be easy, but I don't suggest completely relying on it. For example, the website for a reference was mentioned as "www.cprindia.org", but it should be the website's name, but not the website itself. So it is better to keep it as "Centre for Policy Research". Same is the case with.
For ref 6, none of the template parameters were filled expect for the URL. Please do mention the website, and since it is a PDF, |format=PDF should be added.
Infobox; it is good enough to mention the degrees with the field of study if required, but not with the universities or college. They can be listed for the "alma matter" field. "Occupation" field, denotes the occupation but not a position in an organisation. Something like "Policy analyst" "Policy researcher" can be good.
Lead doesn't generally require citations unless a new fact is presented. See WP:LEADCITE.

I've corrected a few, please make other corrections based on this. Also consider nominating for WP:DYK when you create a new article or expanded 5x. Best, KCVelaga (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: Thanks for taking the time to write down these points, I will keep them in mind for future article too. I will check if there are others changes still left on the basis of this in this article. Thanks again! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Pleasure! KCVelaga (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018 at Women in Red

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

BBC 100 Women 2018

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Better India has been accepted

The Better India, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SamHolt6 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signpost article is fantastic!

I have had so many similar experiences in editing, your article really pulled things together for me. I may have a lot of edits, but I am still a newbie in the sense of all the policies and etiquette that exists here. Please, please continue to write for the signpost. I have been hoping for a long time that we will get a contributor from India. We have so much content regarding India and Indian culture. No long term commitment is required to be an editor/contributor for the Signpost. You can even have a go at creating/collaborating on a Humour article. I am glad to know you and thank you for your work. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Thank you and I am glad you liked the article! :) I really do want to continue writing for the signpost every now and then and I hope this article is an indication that I am not only "saying" I will but I actually "will". As for the humour section; humour doesn't come to me easy (the humour in this article worked out somehow I guess :D), but having a go at helping out with the humour article sounds interesting though. I have read "Dangerous carrots" and "After the apocalypse...", they're really nice pieces in their own way, one requiring keeping a keen eye for such talk on Wikipedia and the other a keen eye for such devious vegetables :D . DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DTM, I was pleasantly surprised to see my name featuring in the Signpost, Thanks a lot for the kind honours. The Article was indeed very well written and I guess every editor can relate to it in someway, because we all start somewhere and learn along the way. Hope to see more of DTM in the future signposts --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Thank you. Glad there was an element of surprise :D and I will surely try to write more in Signpost, need to pace myself for the long haul! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC

Nice article, DTM! I can see you have writing in your 'bones'. Well done! May you have a bright career at Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Thank you Kautilya! Your usage of the word "career" here sounds so heavy... I guess that's following my own mention of needing to "pace myself for the long haul" in the previous reply... I take it back! One day at a time, one day at a time... this sounds much nicer :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I was thinking whether I should inform the Wikipedia users I am mentioning in the article before the final date just to confirm if they have any issues with there name there, including yours, but then I just left the informing part... glad no one has any problem. (Positive mentions not associated with anything controversial... and article turned out decent too, so a happy ending). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,don't worry. You enjoy the freedom of the Press when you write for the Signpost. Besides, you were only saying nice things about us. Helping us new editors find the ropes is something I wish I could do more of, if only I had the time and patience... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

From the editor: Time for a truce

Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

Special report: The Christmas wishlist

Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

Arbitration report: A long break ends

Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

Gallery: Intersections

Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

Essay: No one cares about your garage band

Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		I thoroughly enjoyed reading your signpost article (and felt the need to award you this Barnstar). Happy editing! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me \| my contributions} 17:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Glad you enjoyed the article :) Even gladder with Barnstar! Thanks. :D :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Police Memorial (India)

On 3 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Police Memorial (India), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that India's National Police Memorial has a "Wall of Valour" bearing the names of 34,844 police personnel who died in the line of duty since the country's independence in 1947? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Police Memorial (India). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, National Police Memorial (India)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anushriya Gulati for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anushriya Gulati is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushriya Gulati until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 313: / Line 313: @@
 |text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#3 December 2018|3 December 2018]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[National Police Memorial (India)]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that India's '''[[National Police Memorial (India)|National Police Memorial]]''' has a "Wall of Valour" bearing the names of 34,844 [[Law enforcement in India|police personnel]] who died in the line of duty since [[Independence Day (India)|the country's independence]] in 1947?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/National Police Memorial (India)]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-11-23&end=2018-12-13&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=National_Police_Memorial_(India) National Police Memorial (India)])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
 }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK -->  [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 12:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
+== Nomination of [[:Anushriya Gulati]] for deletion ==
+<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Anushriya Gulati]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
+The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushriya Gulati]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
+Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> —[[User:Cpt.a.haddock|Cpt.a.haddock]] ([[User talk:Cpt.a.haddock|talk]]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)