User talk:Soham321

I am primarily interested in editing WP pages on philosophy, history, and literature.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Soham321. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Sexual Misconduct

It's not RS because the butler is clearly not independent and is also intensely "loyal" to Mr. Trump, as a good butler often is. If you don't like "not RS" then it's clearly UNDUE. Just because a self-serving statement is repeated in the news media does not make it well-sourced content for an encyclopedia. Please undo your reinsertion, which is a violation of DS, and state your view on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali

Greetings fella. You might want to keep an eye on the article at this very time, as there's a touch of edit-warring going on regarding title reign stats. I won't be able to check for another twelve hours. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My source from Muhammad Ali's page on Boxrec.com: On September 14, 1964, Ali was stripped of the World Boxing Association title for signing to fight Sonny Liston in a rematch. The contract for their first fight included a return clause, which the WBA did not allow.

Ali was WBA heavyweight champion 4 times. From February 25, 1964 to September 14, 1964. From February 6, 1967 to April 28, 1967. From October 30, 1974 to February 15, 1978. And finally from September 15, 1978 to September 6, 1979. It is on the BoxRec.com website. Please allow me to correct this Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books?id=NN4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=sonny+liston+wba+heavyweight+champion&source=bl&ots=HvzAMIKSdk&sig=C41zZ5KG9_e-N1pmhTnLRJHqaM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuwpH67trQAhUFxWMKHYULDJI4FBDoAQgcMAE#v=onepage&q=sonny%20liston%20wba%20heavyweight%20champion&f=false

This article from Ebony magazine will prove that both Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali were recognized as champions by the WBA. And that Ali was stripped of the WBA title before regaining it against Terrell Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

With reference to your comments at ANI:

There is nothing "peculiar" about asking for urgent admin action to prevent BLP violations - particularly when the offender has been given multiple chances to retract. WP:ANI is the correct venue for that.
There is no "AE report": it is an "AE ban appeal" and it was Hidden Tempo's choice to open it. That does not give him immunity from sanctions for BLP violations.
Wikipedia takes any violation of BLP policy extremely seriously. This isn't a trivial matter or even a matter just for Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation board was concerned enough to pass a resolution on the issue - see wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

I'd urge you to thoroughly read WP:BLP if you're going to be contributing to biographies of living people – even more thoroughly if you're editing in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS i've thought about this and i am in complete agreement with you as far as the WP:BLP policy is concerned. Besides everything else it is a fool proof method to place the burden of responsibility for any negative content about the living person on the referenced source. I wish we could have explained this more gently to Hidden Tempo keeping in mind the fact that he is a new editor. Soham321 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. As a sort of "olive branch" to HT, I've tried to make some specific suggestions on how to make use of the NBC News source on his talk page. I arrived late to this party after I saw his post on Bishonen's talk page, as I don't follow US politics. Nevertheless, I do agree that it's a pity somebody didn't explain more to him earlier. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

To this:

If someone was not a new user, this is not a problem. He simply might have a previous on-wiki experience. No one was talking about WP:SOCK. This is something I did not investigate.
Providing an opinion about a user who appealed their topic ban on AE is fine. The opinion was based on diffs and other comments provided by other users on the page. This is not WP:BATTLE. I never interacted with this user before.
Commenting about WP-related essays or other materials written by other contributors is also fine.

In brief, nowhere in my statement I made a bad faith assumption. Please reconsider. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue doing this on WP:AE [1], I would like to clarify that no, I do not agree with your comment, and I did not take anything "seriously" because there is no way to consider my comment a BLP violation. I hatted it to simply minimize disruption that you created by filing this duplicate ANI request instead of discussing this with me here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, my understanding of WP policy is that had you not hatted it you would have received a warning and an Admin would have hatted it on your behalf. As I mentioned your comment involved multiple violations. Read these comments for why others think your comment was inappropriate: diff1 and diff2. Soham321 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not receive any warnings, and I would not receive any warnings. This is because my comment was not a BLP violation or any other violation. Does it really matter now? No it does not, unless you want to debate this to nausea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of your comment for anyone reading this page. Soham321 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) And a follow-up diff showing you read the request to retract your comment Soham321 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My editorial judgement was not vindicated

Kingsindian has made a cogent argument for why Gilberthorpe is not a credible witness, and I accept his rationale, so you might want to remove that part of your post. (For the record, I became involved in the misconduct article primarily because a careful reading of the sources—and some OR—persuaded me that the claims about Trump running pageants for his own benefit and being free to barge into dressing rooms at his leisure are dubious; at the very least, Wikipedia's refusal to acknowledge the "counter-witnesses" interviewed by Buzzfeed et al. in the "Miss Teen USA" section—even though they were in the majority—struck me as an odd editorial omission. I've never had an interest in the "he-said, she-said" of the groping accusations, other than to note that the timing four weeks before an election and the ensuing saturation coverage created the risk of a pile on effect—Jessica Drake accusing Trump one day prior to the launch of her new "online sex store," for example, certainly raises questions about possible ulterior motives. That said, the Trump camp's claims need to be scrutinized as well, and they probably shouldn't have put Gilberthorpe forward. In sum—while I wouldn't call this a damning indictment of my editing—I was in no sense "vindicated.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging, I am making a clarification about this in the AE discussion. Soham321 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump misconduct

Soham, the reason that TTAAC's content stayed in the article so long is that few other editors are prepared to edit war in violation of ARBAP2. Basically, once it was reverted ARBAP2 tells us to keep it out so that the matter can be resolved on talk before reinsertion. When an editor violates this and reinserts disputed content on an article subject to this sanction, other editors will generally stand back rather than reinsert it only to set up another round of edit-warring. Your recent message at AE doesn't seem to reflect the DS restriction as the primary reason for the defective content's relative longevity there. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. My edit was reverted almost immediately. The content was later re-added by someone else.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: twinkle issue

Ah, good thing you told me. I didn't realise using the "[restore this version]" function on my end counts as reverting vandalism. I always thought it was identical to "(undo)". Will be more careful in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Feedback request

Admittedly, anything to do with Ali's religious beliefs is completely outside my scope of interest. I only deal with the statistical side of things relating to his fights, namely record tables and succession boxes. You will likely garner more feedback from those who have been more active in maintaining the article as a whole. Sorry I can't be of any help in that aspect. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your note

Hello, Soham321. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Didn't see this until now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali

Hi, Soham - I gave the article a quick look - it's a long one and will require some quiet time. I'll go back and give it a closer look after the weekend. I'm still trying to deal with the rapid expiration of yet another year!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, No worries. Take your time. Soham321 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

A happy Yule to you as well. The Muhammad Ali article continues to grow and improve thanks to your ongoing initiatives, and I suggest trying for a GA or FA nomination next year. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And a merry...

Thanks for your holiday greetings and the same wishes to you. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017

Keep jabbing and moving! All the best Spicemix (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year!

Have a wonderful time over Christmas & New Year and thanks so much for your seasons greetings! Twobells (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

From my tlak page" Thanks for wishing me on my talk page. I appreciate and reciprocate your kind greetings although i wonder if you mistook me for someone else. I don't recall interacting with you before. Soham321 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I basically have turned into a Wikignome and do lots of lurking, rather than the frantic editing binges I used to do. I do note work by others but have concentrated on some very obscure themes, such as North American aviation films. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premature RfC's

Dear Soham, Please note the procedure Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. (at WP:RFC). It is counterproductive to file RfC's before discussing the issues ahead of time. RfC's are a way to get outside input if an agreement cannot be reached among the involved editors. Also, good RfC's must be focused, deal with a single yes/no question. The ones you are filing are too unwieldy, raising a whole range of issues at one go. This is not the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is true but when there is a fundamental disagreement with respect to misrepresentation of source material then extensive discussion is not possible. Soham321 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for unending WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

I've blocked you indefinitely for disrupting the encyclopedia pretty much ever since you started editing here. The straw that broke the camel's back was the AE thread you recently opened, but there have been months and months of it, and I have no doubt it would continued if I had tried to craft a topic ban instead. This isn't an WP:AE block; any admin can unblock if they come to believe that you will stop this behavior. But I've seen enough to know it will never be me who unblocks; I've seen enough to know that you will not change. Template with unblock instructions will be added below in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Floquenbeam

Hi Floquenbeam, i just wanted to note that i consider you an involved Admin as well and as such I believe it is inappropriate for you to place an indefinite block on my account in the middle of an AE discussion. Please advise me on my options on how to file an appeal of the block you have placed on me (in the course of which I shall be presenting evidence of why I consider you an involved Admin). Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved, and the instructions for requesting an unblock are right up there in the template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, is it all right with you if i present evidence of you being involved right here? Soham321 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soham, before you go down the "involved" route please do ensure that you have actually read and fully understood the thing. A lot of your difficulties have been because your understanding of various policies etc has been way behind your willingness to invoke them. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you do here; as long as you're restricted to your own talk page, your ability to disrupt the encyclopedia is significantly reduced. But please don't ping me just to make sure I see why you think I'm involved, as I will not be reading what you post. If you have a question, then ping me. Gratuitous pings are about the only disruption you can still cause, so I'll be removing talk page access if it looks like any pings are intended to pester, rather than question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Risker

pinging senior Admin Risker, with whom i have never interacted, to look into my situation and advise me if she thinks I am an asset to WP. Soham321 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether or not you are an asset in the content area; I'm not going to review your edits. I rarely consider anything resembling unblock requests, which I'm assuming this is intended to be, in some way. Reading your talk page, particularly all of the stuff below, I'm not motivated to review your situation. Even though we rarely communicate, I generally find myself in agreement with Floquenbeam's actions, and nothing you have written has inclined me to think that this particular block would be grounds for me to make an exception to my usual practices. Risker (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. This was not an unblock request. As i have said below i am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case continues. Soham321 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone reading this page

(I began writing a response to Sitush's recent comment on my talk page; but after seeing Floquenbeam's subsequent comment, while i was composing my response, i decided it would be best to place this in a separate section):

Sitush, why am i not surprised to see you come to the defense of Floquenbeam after he indeffed me for a discussion which involved you? Isn't Floquenbeam the same person who had swiftly lifted the indef block on you placed by the now retired Mike V after you had threatened to gun down an editor with whom you had been involved in a dispute with (your comment had been revdeled but it should be accessible to Admins who wish to investigate why you were indeffed by Mike V). Add to this Floquenbeam's interaction history with you (the two of you exchanging frequent pleasantries on each other's talk pages).

Finally, as evidence of Floquenbeam's inherent bias against me (stretching much before this case), consider this comment of Floquenbeam made in the course of my appeal to ArbCom:

If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Sohan that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down hard, so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban.

ArbCom did not "shut me down, and shut me down hard" as Floquenbeam wanted, although they declined my appeal to overturn my topic ban (which expired more than one year ago). No further sanctions were imposed on me. Senior editor Rich Farmbrough (not pinging him because Floquenbeam has threatened he would remove my talk page access if i ping others for anything other than questions) had expressed partial support for my appeal to ArbCom. In a subsequent comment, Rich Farmbrough had responded to Floquenbeam's comment (given by me earlier) with these words:

@ Floq. There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

I would like it to be determined whether Floquenbeam is WP:INVOLVED with respect to me through his words and behavior which prohibited him from imposing the indefinite block he has placed on me after i expressed my views in an AE discussion. Soham321 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come to Floq's defence - read what I said, not some subtext that exists only in your own head. I also haven't taken part in the discussion regarding you at WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED refers to situations where we're at odds in a content disupte. I have no content dispute with you - I don't edit, or know anything about, articles in the India/Pakistan sphere - All I've done is notice your long term disruption a while ago, and occasionally keep an eye on you because of it. It is not a violation of WP:INVOLVED to notice your disruption, comment on it, and when it continues, eventually block you for it.

You can ping people once if there's a legit reason to think they wouldn't mind; I have no concern if you ping Rich once, for instance. It's more the likelihood of you pinging people you're in conflict with, or me, repeatedly, that I'm warning against. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, i disagree with your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. Let's consider what the text pertaining to WP:INVOLVED says:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

You are definitely involved because when you made your comment in my ArbCom appeal--expressing a clear bias against me, invoking ArbCom to "shut him down, and shut him down hard" (your request was ignored by them)-- you had made it in your capacity as a regular WP editor; you were not expressing your views in an administrative role since you didn't get to decide what the outcome of the case would be. Nor were you involved at any stage of my case in an Administrative capacity. Soham321 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I made that comment as an admin aware of your previous disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let us let uninvolved Admins decide whether your comments in my ArbCom appeal were made in your capacity as a regular editor or made in your capacity of being a WP Admin. I think you will agree that we had never interacted before prior to you making those comments. The fact that the ArbCom appeal process (this was an WP:ARCA case) prohibited you from acting in your Admin capacity, the fact that you had never interacted me before making those comments (not as an Admin, not as a regular editor) makes me believe that your comments in my ArbCom appeal should be construed as being the comments of a regular WP editor. Notice these words from the first paragraph of WP:INVOLVED:

Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Soham321 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to formulate it as a proper unblock request. Probably a good idea to read WP:NOTTHEM first. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, There is an ongoing AE case pertaining to me. I am sure the AE Admins are scrutinizing this page. Asking for an unblock right now would complicate the AE case even more. I am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case plays itself out. Soham321 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic and page bans

Per the discussion at WP:AE, please note that you are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages dealing with the realm of WP:ARBIPA (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan). You are also indefinitely banned from filing cases at Arbitration Enforcement. Your topic ban has been noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, thanks for the AE notification. Do i have to now make a separate appeal for lifting the indefinite block? Soham321 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. The way to do it is to post a block appeal per the instructions in Floquenbeam's block template (the "December 2016" section above). Bishonen | talk 01:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. I think i'll take a break from WP. I'll file my block appeal whenever i feel like continuing editing here. Soham321 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusioned by your block

Hi, while I came across your edits for the first time only a couple of days ago, your block has honestly left me quite disillusioned about this whole place. Even if the avenue which was chosen (AE) to raise your concerns was procedurally not the appropriate one, I am at a loss to understand that it lead to your being blocked. While it may land me in trouble going forward, I must state that the cavalier attitude displayed by some of our esteemed admins in tackling the situation was quite disappointing. You repeatedly provided your reasoning to justify filing the AE request (a. Simply no hope at all of making any headway when the other editor brazenly misrepresents sources, b. Your understanding based on prior experience (which you showed evidence for) that once the Rfc has been filed, disputed content shall not be edited). I am amazed that no admin (apart from RegentsPark) seemingly even bothered to understand/respond to this. All this despite two other editors (myself and Kashmiri) stating that they have also had issues working with the other editor. A professional approach on part of the adjudication committee would have been to suggest taking the case to a more appropriate forum (such as ANI I believe), rather than just blocking you.

In any case, there is much more to life than editing Wikipedia, and I hope you are enjoying your time away from this ! Whether you decide to come back or not, I wish you the best. Js82 (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there was no case. Soham could have withdrawn the case, or at least kept quiet so it might have been closed. Let this be a lesson, for all the watchers. Happy New Year! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, i am going to respectfully ask you and everyone else on the "opposing side" of the AE case to refrain from commenting on this AE case on my talk page. We have different opinions about the case and you are entitled to your opinion. But please let there be no grave dancing on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Js82, I am currently trying to educate myself more about how Wikipedia (WP) works. Despite trying to familiarize myself with WP:RULES, i clearly remained ignorant about how WP operates. In the finest WP criticism forum i have come across (it is not WO), someone reviewing my block has written:

Your mistake was in assuming Wikipedia has the capacity to deal with mutli-facetted disputes, which encompass multiple people, involve personality and content issues, over long time periods.
Wikipedia cannot do that. It has the systems, sort of, but not the people.
On Wikipedia, the system works by examining personal conduct issues only, for as brief a time period as necessary, with a view to picking a winner, banning a loser, and filing all other matters, namely the conduct of other people and all matters of disputed content, in the bin marked 'let's see if anyone gives a shit about that stuff later, after we have finisished our tea, biscuits, and self congratulations'.
Floquenbeam, with his <redacted>, <redacted> and assorted other <redacted>, is quite suited to the latter, but not so much the former. Hence the outcome here, at his hands.
I cannot quite believe you expended this much time and energy on these <redacted>. But sometimes it is necessary for people to do that, before their eyes are truly opened. Use your experience to help others avoid the entire <redacted>.

Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"From now on"? No, that is actually the last straw. Your talkpage access has been revoked. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Missing your work -- come back after you cool off

Soham321, I have reviewed the AE case and I frankly agree with the consensus decision. However, that consensus didn't include being blocked forever from the entire site. So, once you have cooled off and have considered areas where you can improve in terms of following policy, I hope that you will ask to be unblocked. You can ask on the basis that you have contributed a lot of valuable content outside of the topic area you have been banned from, and I can attest to that. I would also recommend re-committing yourself to a more cooperative editing experience and vow not to repeat the recent mistakes. If you are concerned you cannot work on Muhammad Ali in India, I would be happy to help steward your changes into article space, given the topic ban doesn't extend to your user space where you can develop a copy of the article. The bottom line is that your work is missed and the Wikipedia needs the positive side of your work. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid a topic ban extends to all pages, including the user space, talk pages etc. What you are suggesting here amounts to proxy-editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sadly, Soham will need to stay away from all IPA topics until he can demonstrate his good conduct somehow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." (italics are mine) I would indeed show (via edit summary or talk page explanation) that changes are verifiable/productive, and as I'm the one who asked because of my own independent reasons, I think this is all covered. Note that Soham321 is not implicated in his work on Muhammad Ali-related articles, as far as I know. Also, to say Muhammad Ali in India is a typical article among India-related articles seems a bit of a stretch. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rana Ayyub for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rana Ayyub 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/Rana Ayyub until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Leon_Spinks_(1st_meeting). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]