User talk:Toddy1/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

How do incoming links determine primary topic?

I've seen you participate in a lot of WP:RM discussions so I thought I should ask you this. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY recommends "Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere (their count)" as a tool for determining primary topic. How exactly does one use that to determine the primary topic? Thanks, VR _talk 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The easiest way to explain is an example RM: Talk:Fagan (saint)#Requested move 8 September 2021. The proposer claimed that the primary topic of Fagan was Saint Fagan. The article on Fagan was a long list of people with that surname, with a further link to Fagan (disambiguation).

One approach is to compare counts of page views, for Saint Fagan and some randomly chosen names listed at Fagan, but one could do the same thing for wikilinks:

Name	Page Views (Oct 2020 to Sep 2021)	Wikilinks (all)	Wikilinks (direct only)
Brian M. Fagan	7,346	87	55
Fagan_(saint)	2,306	44	16
Alex Fagan	2,044	23	23
David Fagan	3,151	23	23
James Fagan (MP)	116	10	10
Shaun Fagan	856	27	27

As you can see, Saint Fagan comes 3rd for page views, 2nd for wikilinks, but only 5th (out of 6) for direct wikilinks. This is evidence that Saint Fagan is not the primary topic of Fagan. It is not necessarily evidence that Brian M. Fagan is is though. To find out that you would have to use the tools to test a lot more of the pages listed at Fagan and Fagan (disambiguation). If, for example, 90% of page views for all people named Fagan were to Brian M. Fagan, that would be very strong evidence, especially over a sustained period.

Let us take another example: Safoora Zargar

• 49,257 page views last 12 months
• 172,525 page views previous 12 months
• 83 wikilinks, (82 direct)

Clearly if Safoora's parents had been Mr and Mrs Fagan, a case could have been made for the primary topic of Fagan being Safoora Fagan, but the huge number of page views between August 2019 and September 2020 was transitory (the article was created on 8 May 2020).

Counting wikilinks provides another view. Ah, but are all links equal? Restricting Wikilinks to articles reduces the number of links to Safoora Zargar to 8! So let us do that to our table for Fagan

Name	Page Views (Oct 2020 to Sep 2021)	Wikilinks (all)	Wikilinks (direct only)	Article Wikilinks (all)	Article Wikilinks (direct only)
Brian M. Fagan	7,346	87	55	59	37
Fagan_(saint)	2,306	44	16	29	6
Alex Fagan	2,044	23	23	8	8
David Fagan	3,151	23	23	13	13
James Fagan (MP)	116	10	10	8	8
Shaun Fagan	856	27	27	18	18

I think this suggests that you want to restrict counting links to articles. That a page has been linked to a lot in talk pages, or ANI, or ANI/3RR is probably not evidence of primary topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for this detailed explanation, I really appreciate it. I now have a much better understanding of the topic. Was it a lot of work to generate the tables? Is there a tool that helps you generate them?

Secondly, I want to take a step back. The number of links incoming to an article is more indicative of wikipedia content creation (and linking) than of what's out there in reliable sources, or what a reader might look for. I'm honestly surprised this is used as a criterion. Couldn't someone create a lot of links to their topic of choice (perfectly legal on wikipedia) to influence what should be the primary topic?

Thirdly, when we have all wikilinks, why is number of "direct only" incoming links of any significance? The reason "direct only" incoming links to Fagan_(saint) are low is because most links are coming from Saint Fagan (which to me suggests Saint Fagan might be the more WP:Natural title for that page). The split between direct and indirect links is often the result of people piping links (like [[Fagan_(saint)|Saint Fagan]]) or forgetting to do that. This forgetfulness should not influence who is the primary topic.

Fourthly, yes, totally agree with restricting namespaces to articles, thanks for that tip! And finally, thanks again for the detailed explanation, this really helped my understanding.VR _talk 18:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Things like railway stations and railway lines often appear in templates in the footers of articles. These appear to be included in the link count (restricted to articles), even though the railway station in question is not mentioned in the article.

For example, Thirsk and Malton line has 100 links from articles (84 direct). But clicking on what links here and then restricting the search to articles produces articles that only mention this line in a template.[1], for example Airedale line is listed as linking to it - but the only link is in a template footer. (The reason for choosing Thirsk and Malton line is that it is closed, so I hoped that relatively few articles would really mention it.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of advanced search and replace with a wordprocessor helps a lot in making tables. And sometimes a spreadsheet can be useful. The most important thing is to know where there are correctly formatted tables with features you will want in your intended table. Also once you have the tool links set up right, it is easy to modify them for other tasks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• On an unrelated note, thanks for for catching this. Without your edit, future editors could have come, see the dead reference and then could remove the text as unverifiable.VR _talk 08:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Astana

Привет мой друг,

Why is the article not moved back to «Астана»? очевидно, что переход на Нур-Султан был неправильным. The move Was not Right, the people See this, but noone reacts to this.

Что я могу сделать, ты можешь мне помогаешь?

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301, people gave you feedback at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Nur-Sultan:

• SmokeyJoe wrote " User:Tecumseh*1301 in particular has been making very shallow over-simplifying proposal statements and posts that do not respect the prior discussions." He also wrote that a move proposal should "summarise the prior RM discussions."
• Extraordinary Writ wrote: "serious policy-based arguments were made that Nur-Sultan is now the common name."
• Vpab15 wrote: "Since you requested the move, it is you who should have provided the evidence that Astana is the common name. You were repeatedly told why the evidence you provided was insufficient. You didn't address those comments, so other editors opposed the move. You need to WP:LISTEN to what editors have said here and in the move request and stop being disruptive."

Do you understand now?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of where you are going wrong. It completely ignores how the process used for a Wikipedia move review. It is just a rant. It annoys people. It does no good.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you can imagine, I surely do not want to annoy people. I Just want that mistakes are being corrected and Wikipedia COMMONNAME guidelines are applied.

What Extraordinary Writ writes, well anyone can claim this, but where is the evidence?

What Vpab15 writes doesnt make sense, you know that, I have provided the numbers, that you have Provided. So, you know the numbers.

And the article Astana was renamed even a long time before that, so nobody seems interested in the numbers at all.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301. Let us check which what Extraordinary Writ wrote. See Talk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 9 October 2021

• BilledMammal pointed out that your claim that Google Books Ngram Viewer was a good indicator was wrong. The data in Ngrams are up to 2019, but the name was changed in 2019, so we need data from 2020 and 2021.
• Ortizesp cited WP:NAMECHANGES. [Comment - that is a strong policy-based argument - it happens to be a wrong argument if you read the wording of the policy. What you needed to do was to explain why WP:NAMECHANGES supported Astana.]
• GorgonaJS opposed based on previous discussions. [Comment - there were strong policy-based arguments in previous discussions. What you should have done when you proposed the move was to summarise the arguments in previous move discussions and explain why they got it wrong.]

So on balance Extraordinary Writ gave you good feedback - advice on how to do it better in future. I assumed that the reason you did not understand this was because you had limited English skills. You say that I am wrong to think that. So why didn't you understand why Extraordinary Writ gave comments he/she did?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's analyse it, no problem.

1. BilledMamal's commentary was Right, Ngrams is not current in this case, so I added Google Scholar and Google Trends to my argumentation.

2. WP:Namechanges argues in favor of my argumentation:

„If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names“.

3. GorgonaJS's commentary : The other arguments did not get it wrong, i totally dont say that, they are simply not enough to beat the WP:COMMONNAME AND WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines plus there are still a lot of names and Events called Astana in their names. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me try to explain some things.

1. Talk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 9 October 2021 was for discussing your move proposal.
2. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Nur-Sultan was for discussing whether the closure of your move proposal was done correctly. The following document has advice on this: Wikipedia:Move review. A move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is for discussing editor behaviour. The following document has advice on this: Wikipedia:ANI advice.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Subection

May I make this section a subsection of the RM? It seems related. But the downside is that people might get confused as to where to !vote.VR _talk 17:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason for having it in a separate section was that good tables have huge amounts of mark up text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

May I add an anchor (Template:anchor) to right before your comment containing the table so as to refer to it in the section above?VR _talk 18:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is weird. I always thought single quotes and double quotes in google search were interchangeable.VR _talk 17:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The rules for Google scholar search are not identical to Google search.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice WIKIOPOLY

Was just going through your page and wanted to say thank you for your help and outside perspective on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75 which somehow has my name tagged in it. I really don't need anything. Just saying thank you....and.... that WIKIOPOLY is really cool. I am having trouble editing my talk page, so appreciate that board even more now then I would have before. Have a wonderful day! Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It uses Template:Monopoly board layout. I believe the creator on the version on my page was User:Manishearth. I copied the version on my page from someone, who copied it from someone. I think it was User:Manishearth who made that particular version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty cool! That guys page has a lot going on. Thanks for the info. Have a good one. Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 00:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What's going on here?

If you go to this link which shows 3 edits, you'll see:

07:01, June 30, 2020‎ Dr Silverstein talk contribs‎ 264,934 bytes +3,257‎ →‎This article is not about rapes committed by Muslims
03:54, June 30, 2020‎ Vishnu Sahib talk contribs‎ 743 bytes +191‎ →‎Undo this move: new section
03:41, June 30, 2020‎ Vishnu Sahib talk contribs‎ 261,677 bytes +737‎ →‎Move without consensus

As you can see Vishnu Sahib's 3:54 edit removes most of the talk page, yet it shows that it only adds 191 bytes. Dr Silverstein's edit restores most of the 200K+ talk page, but it shows that it only adds 3,257 bytes.VR _talk 06:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand this - but there is clearly a bug in the system regarding the byte counts.

1. 03:41, June 30, 2020‎ Vishnu Sahib added a paragraph. 261,677 bytes +737‎
2. 03:54, June 30, 2020‎ Vishnu Sahib deleted most of the talk page, but added a short paragraph. The diff is hard to understand because it looks as though he/she is added two paragraphs by you, but they are also in the mass of stuff being deleted. 743 bytes +191‎
3. 07:01, June 30, 2020‎ Dr Silverstein Revert to version of 03:41, 30 June 2020, and add three paragraphs by Dr Silverstein with signature 07:01 June 30 2020. Note, this deletes the short paragraph added by Vishnu Sahib at 03:54 June 30 2020, but restores the paragraph added by Vishnu Sahib at 03:41 June 30 2020. ‎ 264,934 bytes +3,257‎

A useful diff is this one which compares the versions of 03:41 June 30 2020‎ and 07:01 June 30 2020‎.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Re-adding bad sources to the Wheels article

Toddy1, I didn't want to just revert that without talking to you first. I didn't just "reduce the sources from 11 to 6"; I had previously deleted the poor sources (broadwayworld.com, worcesterhearld) and gave a good explanation for why I did it. The sock UPE added them back in, of course, so when he was confirmed as a sock I simply reverted him because it took less time. I can go through and eliminate the bad sources again, with explanations, but that seems unnecessarily arduous. I would argue that leaving those bad sources there gives the impression that there's coverage from reliable sources, when there actually isn't. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If your aim had been to improve the article, what you did would have been fine. But your aim is to delete the article, so what you did looks more like a POV hatchet job intended to improve your chances of persuading people to delete the article.

Part of any case for deleting the article in 2021 should involve explaining why (in your opinion) the 2017 deletion discussion got it wrong. Why sources that contributors to the 2017 deletion discussion regarded as evidence of notability do not (in your opinion) show any such thing. I see that you have now made such a case in the AFD discussion. That is a more open and honest approach than doing a hatchet job on the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry if it came off that way, but removing those bad sources was what I did way back before the sockpuppets got involved. When I first became aware of the film (and the article) I didn't have "intentions" of deleting it. You can see it in the edit history - I just removed things that I felt didn't belong there. After looking at every single source (which I've done) it's obvious that they're promotional and/or just mentioning the film in a list. Every one. So that's why I nominated for deletion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Back to the two sources you just added - I'm not going to remove them myself, but I'm asking you to give serious consideration to removing them yourself, for two reasons:

(1) They're not reliable sources for establishing notability. One is from a Forbes "contributor" and those are definitely not considered reliable. The other is very similar - a Deadline "collaborative post" which was submitted as a PR story in September 6, 2021 - six days before the paid editor and sockpuppet Ugochukwu75 started working on the article, which brings me to number

(2) All of these links that you've added back in were originally put in the article by the paid editor(s) and their sockpuppets. My concern is the shear volume of references, none of which are reliable sources for notability, would give editors the impression that the film is notable; who's going to go through each one of those links and analyze them all (besides me)? Essentially, you're rewarding the sockpuppets for violating the rules by leaving their bad links in the article. I don't think that's the right path. What do you think? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your argument in the AFD is that the sources that other users thought reliable and proof of notability are nothing of the kind. If that is your argument, it is only fair that other editors are allowed to see those sources and judge for themselves. One of the problems for people evaluating whether the article should be deleted is that the word "wheels" is a common word, so Google searches show lots of irrelevant links. I found the two sources I added by a Google search that combined the name of the film with the names of Donavon Warren and Tim Gagliardo; this produced lots of hits mainly to film review websites, and some commercial sites such as Amazon. I do not have the knowledge to say which film review websites prove notability, indeed I am not convinced that any of them do that. I was more impressed by the link to Amazon (though Wikipedia has a stupid prejudice against links to Amazon).-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppets:

1. Film Fanatical10069, created 16 January 2015 at 04:17
2. Ugochukwu75, created 27 March 2020 at 02:11
3. Binaza, created 25 August 2021 at 19:47

So none of the edits by Film Fanatical10069 before 27 March 2020 were sockpuppetry. Ugochukwu75 and Binaza were blocked at 16:24 9 November 2021^[2][3] So edits by Film Fanatical10069 after 16:24 9 November 2021 were block evasion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Film Fanatical10069 was a single purpose account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what your rationale is for including those links, though. You're saying that the three accounts that provided all of those links were either sockpuppets or block evading. Okay, fine - whatever you want to call it, they were all engaging in prohibited behavior. So, in essence, you are rewarding them for their bad behavior by leaving the mountain of links in the article, because they're having the exact effect that the person(s) behind those accounts wanted: they're giving the impression that the article is well-sourced (it's not), and the volume of them discourages people from looking at them in-depth. You yourself just said you found the two sources you added with a Google search but you didn't bother to notice that they're both not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards - not even close! Keep in mind that BOTH of them were already previously added by the promotion-focused socks/block evaders (not surprising, because the same person likely created or paid for those web pages in the first place). What's your justification for adding them if they're not from reliable sources? Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a wikibreak until the AFD is over.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels (2014 film) and previous deletion discussion (which took place before the article was moved)

Artwork caption

I added that image only a short while ago and actually changed it from "imperial" to "Ottoman" [4], but I received a disambiguation alert on my talk page [5]. Turns out, "Ottoman", rather oddly, does not take you straight to the Ottoman Empire, or something on Ottoman culture. I guess Ottoman Empire might be the best fit, but long-term it seems sth. like Ottoman society and culture should exist and be where "Ottoman" goes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Largest prehistoric animals - Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes)

Well, Ishan87 start it first. If he can agree my accurate knowledge, then edit war will not be happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursKing (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I will keep going edit "Largest prehistoric animals" about Megalodon, if Ishan87 making the mistake again. So hopefully Ishan87 will not making the mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursKing (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have many evidences can prove I'm right.

1)Average size adult Megalodon is not 10.5 meters. Is size of juvenile Megalodon. Yep, Juvenile Megalodon is 10.5 meters. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/megalodon-shark-nursery-discovered/ “Our study suggests the specimens represent mostly juveniles with lengths between 2 and 10.5 meters,” https://cdn.britannica.com/51/200251-050-79878ECB/Studies-body-mass-megalodons-females-males-sharks.jpg http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/m/megalodon.html

2)Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/03/world/megalodon-shark-scli-intl-gbr-scn/index.html

3)Megalodon maximum size is 20.3 meters. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3284-estimating-lamniform-body-size DinosaursKing(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursKing (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Use the article talk page to discuss this. Not my talk page!-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure Toddy? I wouldn't mind a little dinosaur trivia-related chitchat on your talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Nishidani wrote: "there is a huge literature out there, and whenever I have checked it item by item, I see a large swathe of subtle and nuanced argument reduced to the 'juicy' parts."^{Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam 2 November 2021} But the same applies to Largest prehistoric animals#Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes). The dispute went to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and once protection was over both Ishan87 and DinosaursKing reverted each other. They need to use the article talk page to discuss what the article should say about Megalodon. There has been some progress - DinosaursKing accepted the scientific name that Ishan87 says is right.^{1 December 2021}-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just impressed at how there really is a subject, and a bone of contention, for everyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You posted the message above in a series of edits at Talk:Largest prehistoric animals at 16:11 on 5 December 2021‎. I replied at Talk:Largest prehistoric animals at 17:58. So you then reposted your original message on my talk page at 18:02! This was annoying.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RM

Re this comment. Would you also be ok with "History of concubinage in the Muslim world"? Not as a preferred option but as an acceptable option. One reason I ask that is because there seems to be evidence from the Muslim world of "concubines who were not slaves". Thanks, VR _talk 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've totally lost track of the source (I could have sworn it was in one of these articles somewhere), but there definitely seems to have been some voluntary enrollment into the concubinage system under the Ottomans as well. Fascinatingly, the Ottomans seem to have broken just about every rule. Take for example, this: While the Circassians were normally Muslim, the ban against the enslavement of Muslims was overlooked in their case, and their original Muslim status was an "open secret". (So, an obvious Islamic law violation - that's taken from the Cariye page). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"I've totally lost track of the source" story of my life ! VR _talk 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the story of my life in this particularly jumbled mess of a subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Muslims enslaving other Muslims (though not for sexual purposes), there is a television series called "Africa's Great Civilisations" presented by Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, and the episode about the Atlantic slave trade gave an instance of a ruler in what is probably now Nigeria who faced a rebellion led by "scholars". The ruler's army defeated the rebellion; but instead of letting the "scholars" families pay ransoms and get their people back, the ruler had them shipped across the Atlantic as slaves. Realistically, if the "scholars" had been freed, they would started formenting rebellion again, so selling the "scholars" into slavery in the Americas was a merciful alternative to executing them. Of course, Gates, being biassed, did not point out this obvious fact. Instead he gleefully explained that a later rebellion succeeded and the ruler was cruelly executed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the RM. On the whole, I think the four of us (G.I.T.V.) have had our say. It is best to let other people have a say, and then let an uninvolved person (preferably an Admin) adjudicate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

True, we have certainly had our say, but your last decisive statement on it was to oppose the original title, leaving it a somewhat open question as to what you think of History of concubinage in the Muslim world (without the slave-) Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding possibly non-slave concubines - see the table of contents for Concubines and Courtesans, Women and Slavery in Islamic History, edited by Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn A. Hain. Chapter 9 is Slaves Only in Name: Free Women as Royal Concubines in Late Timurid Iran and Central Asia, by Usman Hamid.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's the book that VR's first comment linked to. So ... is you in or is you ain't? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

But I have not read the book. Only the first chapter is available free of charge online. The title of chapter nine suggests that some concubines in some Muslim societies were really free, but nominally slaves. I do not see that I can make a judgment.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I found it - from Slavery in the Ottoman Empire: The Ottoman Imperial Harem was similar to a training institution for concubines, and served as a way to get closer to the Ottoman elite. Women from lower-class families had especially good opportunities for social mobility in the imperial harem because they could be trained to be concubines for high-ranking military officials. ... paraphrased, I presume, from the source: Peirce, Leslie P. (1993). The imperial harem: women and sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York. ISBN 0195076737. OCLC 27811454.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:, I found another reference: "Mughal emperors in India sometimes deposed a wife to the status of a concubine in order to promote a favorite." (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Volume 1 page 267) Since a wife had to be free, this is another example of a free woman becoming a concubine for political reasons. Sorry Toddy1 for bombarding your talk, I thought since we were already having this convo here, I'd paste my example.VR _talk 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The broader point is that "freedom" itself wasn't such a fixation in the ancient world. People with a first-world problems perspective seem to forget that in medieval subsistence economies, being beholden to a master but well-treated and potentially pampered or even powerful was a far preferable state of being to being free and impoverished. Does an enslaved eunuch vizier envy the masses? Does a land's most powerful concubine begrudge the free wives of the day labourers at the bottom of society? Your voluntary/involuntary concubinage source has also got me thinking about whether concubinage represents something of a liminal state between freedom and slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There's at least two scholars who said something like "a concubine didn't have much freedom...nor did wives for that matter". A thousand years ago, if you were the wife of an abusive king, there was no way you could just leave him (unless he permitted you to leave, maybe for a political reason). You were effectively his property. It didn't even matter what the law said, cause the king did as the king wished. But, going back to your point about liminal state, yes one source says that concubines/courtesans "created a liminal social and legal space between free and unfree".VR _talk 12:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a bonus - "liminal" is a great adjective and totally underused word. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Film Fanatical10069

Hi Toddy. If you recall, User:Film Fanatical10069 has an open unblock request. You may also recall, User:Fred Zepelin is very keen on seeing the request be unsuccessful. I left a comment on the unblock request stating my opinion on whether Film is a sock of User:Ugochukwu75. This resulting in an unceasing chain of replies which I consider to be bludgeoning the process and which descended into insults about my mental faculties and open mocking. Since you have some familiarity with the subject, perhaps you can mediate a little here. I don't want to have to escalate this any more than it needs to be. Thanks, --SVTCobra 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You can very easily not escalate by leaving the entire process alone to play out with an uninvolved admin making the decision on the block appeal. I left comments on the block appeal that offered hard evidence. Your comment ignored all of the hard evidence and essentially boiled down to "this account seems to act more maturely than the other account". I'd like to know how that's helpful to anyone besides the sockmaster. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, I thought your comments were most helpful. Regarding the trolling, I think the choices are (1) wait for admins to make a decision on Film Fanatical10069's unblock request, or (2) make a complaint at WP:ANI or WP:ANI/3RR depending on the exact wording of the complaint.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddy. It's a shame Fred doesn't understand what hard evidence is. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to listen to your explanation of what hard evidence is, and I mean that earnestly. What am I missing, exactly? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you missing... (1) experience in SPIs, (2) perspective, (3) impartiality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I ask honestly for an explanation and I get condescension. I wish you'd treat me as well as you've been treating a blocked sockpuppet that was paid for editing and denied it until he was caught. That would be an upgrade. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You did not get condescension. You got an honest and sincere answer. It just was not the answer you wanted to hear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation of "hard evidence". We'll have to agree to disagree on whether you were being condescending in your reply. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, the only type of hard evidence there can be is from a CheckUser investigation. Everything else, barring a confession, is circumstantial. --SVTCobra 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I shouldn't be using the term "hard evidence" when referring to anything outside a CheckUser (although I don't see that specific definition on the WP:CHECK article - you might be really talking about "technical evidence", but whatever). I'm talking about the difference between "well this guy is more polite" and my research about very specific actions, such as the two sock accounts both using broadwayworld.com on separate articles as a reference. It's a website that covers Broadway shows but accepts paid submissions on almost anything even tangentially-showbiz-related, and one of the socks used a paid submission as a reference on Wheels (a film) while the other used a paid submission as a reference on Joseph Carraro, a politician. I realize that this is more in-depth than you've gone, but I bring it up precisely for that reason. Also keep in mind that Celestina007 and Dennis Brown stated there's more evidence that they're not making public, which is what made the final decision happen. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, checkusers conduct a technical investigation. I am unaware of any such statement by Celestina007. Dennis Brown said there was behavioral cues he didn't want to divulge, though I can't imagine what that could be. Both of them are admins but not checkusers. As an admin myself for over 14 years (on another project) I know exactly what admins can see that other users cannot. Basically, it's just deleted articles and other pages as well as the related edit histories. --SVTCobra 20:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 says it here. She also calls out the Fanatic for "Ad hominem & a deflection tactic", which is very much consistent with Ugochukwu75 account's behavior. Apparently he couldn't hold the facade 100% of the time. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What did I do to you?

I'm baffled. I uncovered a sockpuppet, and then another one. His last account is still appealing. I offered evidence that shows he should not be allowed to edit again, because he deleted it off of his talk page and then deleted my comments over and over again to hide evidence. Yet, you're watching my every edit, and hounding me to the point where I can't understand what it is I did to deserve this behavior. I asked once what I'm missing and I got your flippant "What are you missing... (1) experience in SPIs, (2) perspective, (3) impartiality.-" comment. I'm asking again, and I'm not trolling. I really want to know why you seem to have taken an adversarial stance against the person that uncovered a paid editor that was socking, and taken the side of the paid editor that was socking. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gravedancing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not in a grave. He's still trying to get unblocked. If he wasn't, I would never give him another thought. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Direct quote from the link you posted: "What isn't gravedancing: Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block." Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bro, keep an eye on the activities of...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Toddy, I didn't know where to tell you this, hope u don't mind me messaging it here. Bro, keep an eye on the activities of GorgeCustersSabre ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre ). He edits articles based on his likes and dictates his bias everywhere, he was banned before but no change in his attitude. Ishan87 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

​​I am confused by your post.

• contribution history
• block log
• filter log

What ban are you talking about? Please could you supply a diff of admins banning the user in question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have never been banned. You may not agree with my edits (that's your right), but I try to edit in good faith and according to Wikipedia policies as I understand them. If I am wrong about a policy, show me. Don't just allege bias. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere reply George, but you seem to overwrite other people's edits based on your personal preference. I could be wrong but you abuse the "unreferenced" terms to remit any writing whenever you don't like something. Wikipedia is not a fact book. You cannot expect every sentence to be backed by a 3rd party citation. As for ban, I've seen you getting blocked from editing some months ago because of similar reason. Anyway, I only wish you well and want you to help with people's edits, not dictate your biases. I hope you take my comments positively Ishan87 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability means other people using the encyclopaedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Therefore we should expect every sentence to be backed by citations. In some circumstances primary sources are appropriate, in other circumstances not. There are also circumstances when the best source is something written by the subject. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: I have never been blocked. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dusrapehelu

I have spent some time on investigating Dusrapehelu. They seem to evade detection somehow. Hence the confusion on who the original sock master is. This presents a genuine problem of where to file the SPI. The experienced admins are much better than us in looking for clues. The sharp personal attack is one of the many characteristic of Dusrapehelu. Venkat TL (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Google News Britain or India?

In this comment did you mean "Google News search results for India"? I am under the impression that www.google.co.in refers to India, and www.google.co.uk would refer to Britain. Or are they the same thing? VR _talk 00:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

They are the same thing. What makes a difference are (1) the filter for Country: the UK, (2) the filter for Past year. You can see these filters in URLs.

• Country: the UK Past year gave me 199 results this morning.
• Country: the UK Past month gave me 36 results this morning.
• The web Past year gave me 6,580 results this morning.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your first two links look exactly identical. And how do you see the number of results it gives? It doesn't say on the webpage.

Also, dumb question, but how many distinct (English) googles are there? I guess there's US, UK...what else? I'm not talking about "same" googles (as you pointed out Google UK and Google India are the same thing).VR _talk 06:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The number of results

I use a computer. There are two ways to find out number of results it gives.

1. There is a button marked "Tools" to the right under the search bar. If you press that button, the filter choices disappear and are replaced by About 181 results (0.22 seconds). If you press the button again, the filter choices reappear Country: the UK Past year Sorted by relevance Clear and the number of results disappear.
2. At the bottom of the page there is a list of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next. Click on the number to the far right (10) and you get Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next. Click on the number to the far right and repeat until there is no "Next" Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. On each of the first 18 pages, it showed ten results. On the 19th page you have to count the number of results, which is six. Therefore, the search produced 186 results.

The second method is more precise, and sometimes produces a much lower number than the "Tools" method. If you do the search looking at the web for the past year, the "Tools" method gave me "about 6,490 results", the second method gave me 293. When I pressed the "Tools" button on the 29th page for "Web" it gave me the same result as the second method, but on any other page it gave me "about 6,490 results". So if quoting result numbers, you need to be consistent how you do it.

I have been told by Tecumseh*1301 that the numbers are shown by Google when he accesses it through a computer, but not when he/she accesses it through a so-called "smart phone".-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Tools button, thanks! I also use wikipedia from my desktop only.VR _talk 15:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the challenges on Wikipedia is trying to understand what it is that the other person does not understand -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How many distinct Googles

I do not know. And I do not know how many (if any) are district. I did find some years ago that some books people were citing on Wikipedia were available some country Google Books, but not others.

Since Google do not tell us when they change Google, or how they change it, differences and features of the Google system of systems may change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Copy right violation ..

No i was not using a copy image that u had told to me i had upload this icon at the same time here in wikipedia as well as in facebook Malik umer 121121 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That is only possible if you control the Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya organisation's Facebook page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Toddy1!

Happy New Year!

Toddy1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— DaxServer (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Regarding recent reverts

Hi Toddy1,

I noticed that you were reverting some of the recent undiscussed moves of places in South Africa; thank you. I just wanted to note that there is an ongoing discussing regarding those moves at ANI, on the off chance you are unaware.

BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Sorry if it seems that I am duplicating things that you already said in various South African move discussions, but Desertambition said We need Wikipedia editors/admins with no connection to South Africa to look over this whole thing.^{22:24, 4 January 2022} (I think he/she meant connection with, which has a slightly different meaning.) Since I have no connection with South Africa, I am helping out -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The evidence you presented might be similar to mine, but your summary is far better - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sign at closing

You forgot to sign the closure at Talk:Allahabad. Also, this might be useful for closing User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser :) The current lightgreen is not so light after all 😂Maybe consider using the generic blue (like the moratorium closure) (can be selected if the DiscussionCloser script is used)? That seems to be the one preferred for normal discussion closures. Up to you ;) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on Orania, Northern Cape

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orania, Northern Cape. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Desertambition (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone feels the need to warn me about edit warring on Orania, Northern Cape, I am aware that have made two reverts on 18 February, just as I made two reverts on 16 February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING

Hello Toddy1, I ask that you stop following me around and opposing almost every edit I make. You tend to show up on posts I edit and it can come off as very ill intentioned. Especially given statements like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddy1&diff=1064517066&oldid=1063679115

Sorry if it seems that I am duplicating things that you already said in various South African move discussions, but Desertambition said We need Wikipedia editors/admins with no connection to South Africa to look over this whole thing.22:24, 4 January 2022 (I think he/she meant connection with, which has a slightly different meaning.) Since I have no connection with South Africa, I am helping out 

Also, what is your personal stance on white nationalism? Obviously you don't have to answer but I am curious. You called one of the users' complaints about "anti-white racism" legitimate. I am wondering if you think "anti-white racism" is an actual issue as well. Desertambition (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, go to WP:ANI and provide diffs to back up your aspersions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanjeev Sanyal

If you revert my edits, you ought to, at the very least, ensure that the blatant SEO linkspam in the Hindustan Times and other newspaper links is removed to ensure 5 pillar compliance. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your knowledge of the English language

I observe that you have an en-0 badge on your User page which indicates you have considerable difficulty in understanding the English language. If there are any misunderstandings between us due to language differences we should resolve these by discussion rather than by mindlessly reverting and edit warring. For example when you placed a CN tag on the aristocrat claim on Sanjeev Sanyal you were possibly unaware that Sanyal's father is a retired IAS officer of West Bengal cadre, which is a merit based position through a public selection process and so not a hereditary one. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Other editors have overwritten your edit on Sanjeev Sanyal, so we should treat this discussion as closed. Thanks. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[6]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm not reporting you, I just have to put this here because I mentioned your username. Desertambition (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. You got the order of events not quite right in your post on WP:ANI. I have added the dates and times and changed the order of part of your post below. You can see that I raised the issue on the talk page before Nemov reverted me. i.e. I was acting collaboratively rather than edit-warring.

• 00:26, 22 March 2022‎ Spekkios then reverts again and says that the Washington Post "cites a dead link, even on webarchive". They say that it doesn't matter if the youtube video is from the Huffington Post because it do not "cite its sources". They also falsely claim that the Denver Post source "links to an opinion derived from the study from one person" which is not true. [7]
• 11:45-57, 22 March 2022‎ Toddy1 then reverts after making sure the links are not dead and improves the citation with a webarchive link. [8]
• 11:51-52, 22 March 2022‎ Toddy1 then starts a discussion on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Alabama#The_Washington_Post_article) and correctly states that the links are not dead.
• 12:07, 22 March 2022‎ Finally, Nemov reverts Toddy1 and claims, without consensus, that the information is already in the article and doesn't belong in the lead. [9]
• 12:12-18:10, 22 March 2022‎ Spekkios and Nemov move the goalposts and change their argument so they don't have to address the false claims that the links were dead.

Please could you do this for all of the events in your post of 18:56, 25 March 2022 on WP:ANI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for Makhanda, South Africa and Qonce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Makhanda,_South%20Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi @Toddy1. I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for all your help and guidance. I really could not have done it without you taking the time to guide me through those challenges I was facing. The amount of time you took and help you offered is something that is very commendable. Thank you! Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 23:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi, I have requested a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Tek_Fog, but it is pending for last 20 days. While they catch up with their pending lists, do you want to go through the article to fix any major copy edit problems that you see. I am seeking to unblock the DYK request that cannot move forward without the copy edit. Venkat TL (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A look please

Hi Toddy1. Could you take sometime and have a look at Talk:Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi#Primary sources and see my response to the bad aspersions of the IP-user. I also requested MER-C to have a look but looks like they've been not active over the day. I'd appreciate your ideas and help. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 21:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor is an experienced editor who is choosing to edit whilst logged out.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As with people we see at WP:ANI, such editors know lots of policies, which they quote in arguments. Often such editors harvest phrases or sentences from discussions and recycle them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Everything you wrote is reasonable and sensible.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Faizabad sock?

Asianfire22 (talk · contribs) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

probably-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There are now enough edits to do an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjay Kumar Tiwari20. Thanks for the tip off.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a new one Ajnabee2022. I have done an SPI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Just about to file it. This is now a whack-a-mole 😅 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And we have another new one today, so there is another SPI report.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested protection for Municipal Corporation article, to start with — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We have another one, and there is an SPI report on him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sanjeev Sanyal

Everything I wrote in the talk page is in public domain and verifiable on reputed websites. Unfortunately, not so much in the English language, but in the Bengali language newspapers. For example in connection with the Turkish Urea scam in India. 49.36.179.135 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. They do not have to be in English. If it is true, and relevant, then you need to provide citations that support statements. You can see the format of citations from the article. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ali article

Hey there friend,

You added back some info in regards to the death of Ali, where it is indicated in parenthesis that Ali passed away in ‘modern day iraq’. But thats why the link is there for ‘Kufa’. The reader can click on it and see where it is. This is the purpose that the link serves. It also makes the article seem unprofessional if something is going to be added to specify for one section and not the other. I propose that either ‘present day KSA’ should be added or that these parenthesis should be removed all together. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

One is a well known place (Mecca); one is not (Kufa).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

AfriForum page

Hi, did you check the 2 sources before undoing my edits on AfriForum? Both go to 404 - Page not Found. Please explain. Rossouw (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I undid one of your 2 June edits, not both. The edit I undid was 08:18, 2 June 2022, which gave the reason: removed duplicate source. The two sources were not duplicates; but they were badly labelled in their citation templates. So I checked both sources. Though the original URLs are dead, the archive-links worked fine. I corrected the page titles for each of them and provided data for the work field of the citation template. Your edit was mistaken. It was explained in my edit summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi Toddy, would you kindly have a look at/watchlist this? Similar POV here. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my edits by Toddy1 due to no of sources.

HI, I am sorry for this mistake. Thank you for the reference, I will take a look at it and read up on how to add sources in wikipedia before making my edits. I am working on citations and thoight they would finish in time to add with my edit however it is taking a bit longer. From now on I will post both edits and sources at the exact same time. THank you! 216.181.132.21 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

Hi, Toddy1! Hope all is well with you. This proposal to rename Fatimah might be of interest to you. Please consider participating in it. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Toddy,

Thanks for the message.

I can't see anything on the welcome page about conversion templates being compulsory - they are simply a tool to convert miles to km or vice versa. There is no need to use a template if the km/mile conversion is known.

My edits are constructive - I've simply been typing the conversion into the text without recourse to a template.

Cheers, Scott Newzild (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

My edit was reverted

In the article "narcissism", I recently made an edit by replacing the several hundred years old source with a new source, but unfortunately, you have reverted this, can you please explain why? Sincerely, 202.169.23.60 (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To call it reverting is a stretch.

You added a new source, and added the words "to some degree". My edit kept the new source you added, and changed "to some degree" to "to some extent". My edit summary explained this: retain the old source. the new source's only value is its newness. See Talk:Narcissism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

missing words

aren't we all -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Grouped footnotes

Thanks for alerting me to that. Sorry, I probably just haven't looked hard enough, but what type actually would be OK there? Or do you mean that the footnotes didn't need grouping at all? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no objection to one footnote holding several references. This produces this:

References

But where the same citations are used elsewhere in different places in the article, it is better to have them separately.

If you look at this old version of the article, you can see an example how how bad grouped footnotes are. The person implementing them imagines that he/she has made the main text tidier. But then the poor reader has to navigate to ^{note 3} to find it is not really readable, and requires them to navigate to ^{[1][11][6][12][13][14][10]}. I once found an article with grouped footnotes where editors had added the same citation(s) twice against the same statement (both in and outside the grouping), and that this had happened in various places in the article. Editors had clearly found the grouping as confusing as the readers did, and had not realised that the citation was already there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock

FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for ironclad warship

User:Buidhe has nominated Ironclad warship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Prayagraj

User:Ayodhya-prayagraj is the Prayagraj sock. I forgot the name of the sockmaster. Venkat TL (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Frontier Ventures" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Frontier Ventures and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Frontier Ventures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing other users comments

Hi Toddy, while I appreciate your contribution to the discussion on correct image for the Eva Kaili article please can I ask you not to edit my comments without my permission. In line with WP:TPO a user should never edit another users comments without permission. Thanks for your understanding and happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Jewish genetic debate on Khazar hypothesis talk page

Toddy1, since you're an active Wikipedian and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tritomex#Crimean_Karaites on 13 April 2013 you had talked about Brook in relation to a different Wikipedia entry, you might wish to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Wikipedia editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B104:1EB:8EB3:43B7:4A7B:8C7 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the best way to do links within Wikipedia is as follows:

• User talk:Tritomex#Crimean Karaites
• Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry#Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it

On talk pages, please put a ":" at the start of the wikilink. On articles, please do not. Putting a ":" at the start, is meant to stop some automatic functions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Haren Prison

Hi Toddy, good work on starting the Haren Prison article. Apparently there's already an article on it in the Dutch wikipedia and some info on the French as well.

• https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gevangenis_van_Haren
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_de_Forest#La_prison_de_Haren

Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Conquest of Mecca

Not sure if you've noticed the recent edits here. A lot of material has been added, much of it poorly sourced. Then again, the existing page also had poorly sourced material. You've edited the page a fair bit in the past, so might have an opinion on it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

removal of all edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Toddy1, Firstly, let me start by saying how I've enjoyed working with you on developing the Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament since the beginning. I haven't been editing here long and it's been good to see your edits and correction as they've helped me learn.

I've spent this afternoon working on the article as I think it needed improvement. Lots of the article was written as events developed. Which, understandable, means the contributions have fallen in to some recentism. Heck, most of the edits I've made today are to my earlier contributions. The article was starting to read like a newspaper and I made some light language edits to correct this. The listed paragraphs of breaking events were starting to be indiscriminate so I moved some around to make sure the content was still readable as a encyclopaedic entry. The main purpose of my edits, however, was to address what needed to be included as citations. Due to this article being developed as news was breaking this has resulted in a hugely over cited article. All the sources that we're removed meet the WP:REFBOMB criteria and all the edits I made were following the cite trim instructions.

I've just seen you've removed all of today's work and restored an old version of the article which I find a little frustrating for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe it is proper for you to identify two issues (that you've stated in your edit summary— I'm sure you spotted more) and then carte-blanche all edits because you "don't have time". Respectfully, if you don't have time then please correct the errors you find but don't assume bad faith by deleting all edits. If you don't have time I'm sure someone else would spot them. Maybe even I would have.

Secondly, you have made this revert and not notified me as the user who made the edits. I really would've appreciated you letting me know on my talk page that you have reverted an afternoon's worth of work. Respectfully, I believe you to be aware of the amount of work put in to those edits— notice would've been apprecaited.

For the errors you have identified in your edit summary;

• I was in the process of drafting the talk page contribution. I had notified the user who made the edit firstly and was in the process of posting to the talk page when you reverted.
• You are correct regarding the authors of the article. I used Citer which produced this result. Apologies for not verifying.

I would kindly as you to revert your deletion and work at addressing which edits you disagree with or the errors I have made in my edits. I understand if you do not want to revert but it would be appreciated if you did assume good faith and take a look at the positive contribution I was trying to make to Wikipedia.

I hope we can continue to work on the article together— as I said, I've enjoyed it— and I hope to work on others together in future. Happy editing. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. I made it explicitly clear why I deleted.^[10] There were a lot of errors in the version produced by your edit. It looks like the tool you used is not fit for purpose with French (and possibly other languages). I never use such tools, but spend my time checking and editing manually.

Regarding the "move to talk" - well it had been 30 minutes since your edit....

Regarding excess citations, I can see a case for removing some of them. Maybe you could discuss these on the talk page. I am anxious that the article retains a range of good quality citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And yes, I make errors too: "proposition" should have been "preposition".-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a shame that you cannot see my frustration and don’t want to revert. Sadly, I’ve put in hours of work today on this so will not be going through the article again to take every edit to the talk page as your request. I believe the onus is on you to undo each edit you disagree with so they can be taken to the talk page, not carte-blanche all the edits and ask for a redo of work a contributor has already done.

As I said, I followed cite trim and Ref bomb to the letter. The article still retains good quality references and a good number of references. For a 3,000 word article it was reduced from 91 to 82. Still a mammoth amount of references for such a short article. I do not believe your anxieties warrants a blind revert in such an instance.

Please be assured, my efforts on this article were to work toward featured status and not to do damage.

I will leave the article in your hands now and wish you all the best with it.

Happy editing. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You have got the process wrong. In your position, I would have assumed that the objections in the edit summary were meant to be taken at face value. This is called assuming good faith - that people mean what they say they mean. So in your position, I would have:

1. edited your version and fixed the many errors (I think that would take an hour).
2. looked again at some of the deleted citations and come up with a compromise.
3. explained the restructuring on the talk page.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I proposed the deletion of your revert so “my version” could be fixed.

The edit summary relates to 5,000 characters worth of edits. It would not be possible to correlate which parts you agree with, which you disagree with and which edit you refer to with each part of the justification in your edit summary. It is why each edit, “especially when reverting” should be its own edit and not grouped together. As per H:FIES.

Your justification for the revert is specifically listed as a bad reason to revert. I’m confident I have the process correct here.

In any case, I do not wish to leave this article with a sour taste so I wish you the best of luck with it and hope to leave this on a positive note! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 17:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way in your edits you wrote MEPs including Dino Giarrusso and Viola von Cramon stated that many countries approach MEPs "hoping to improve [their] country's reputation". i.e. it is normal for countries to approach MEPs for this purpose. This is the complete opposite of the inference in the cited source (Der Spiegel), which was that it was a corrupt practice that should be investigated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That wasn’t my inference in any way and was more intended to explain the process is widespread. If it were reverted as a single edit with a edit summary then it could’ve been clarified. This would’ve been a great example of why to revert each edit and not carte-blanche. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 17:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Adani Group, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please discuss, dont revert. WP:DONTREVERT Strandofhair (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive#28 February 2023

Please could you explain what you think I have done that you think is disruptive. Please use diffs to show what you mean, and say why you think it was disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Already done.. on the article talkpage. Strandofhair (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Explanation

Hey Todd,

Basically, I didn't really get the full purpose of putting names, dates, translated titles and so forth when I originally started writing pages. After talking with you, I understand why adding that can add credibility to various articles and can just make it plain easier for 3rd parties to get without having to do more work. As you may have noticed, I've tried to do the full citation on everything going forward. I think going back and fixing up anything else I wrote would probably also be a good move. I appreciate your assistance throughout the whole process. You have been a ton of help, and I think I can best repay you by fixing these issues. Have a great day and always a pleasure to work with you.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dharwas

Hi Todd.

You left a message on my talk page about an edit I made to this entry. However, I don't believe I have ever made an edit to this page (or visited before today). Is it possible someone is using my login; how can I check? Grapevine73 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Your account was created on 17 September 2020 at 11:31 (UTC).^[11] This is the edit that you made at 11:38 17 September 2020 (UTC) to the article on Dharwas.

• You can look up at the edits made using your accounts by looking at Special:Contributions/Grapevine73.
• You can look up statistics about your editing using the edit count utility.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Family problems

WhatsApp no. 2607:FEA8:4DC0:6F90:FCF8:F0B8:34E8:6DC7 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not have WhatsApp. Who are you?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Indian businesses

You realize this UPE uses a Vietnamese IP to edit Vietnamese geographical subjects and the account to edit Indian businesses, has socked to evade their p-block, has made legal threats, and is currently engaged in personal attacks on their user talk? Valereee (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaand resubmitted. This UPE is desperate to be able to show their client they've gotten the article moved to main space so they can get paid. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Aight, I'll leave the two of you to it, but consider that you're using your volunteer time and energy to teach a pretty bad actor how to fly under the radar here. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You have undo my edit

Regarding [12] MOS:SEAOFBLUE does not say anything about related wikilink. It's says about you can't use multiple wikilink in a sentence. Separated coma sentence can be wikilinked. (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) posted by 103.39.128.97 and modified by DSP2092. The edit he/she is talking about is this one.

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please note that you had started an edit warring by reverting constructive edits on Hyderabad which is an FA, thus please be refrain from these activities. Previously you have not been part of most of the discussions on this articles talk page, so i advice you to please go thru all the discussion during articles FA before reverting or adding info/images. I had spent lot of time and efforts to make this article an FA and don't want to indulge in edit warring, so please self revert ur edits. Regards :) Omer123hussain (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ayodhya

Has this thing about Faizabad and Ayodhya resolved? I've been seeing edits like these [13] lately - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Partially. It has been agreed that the district and division articles be moved to the new name, and some renaming is being done of articles that used the district name as a disambiguator. But some accounts/IP addresses would like all mention of Faizabad removed from existence. The city still exists - one argument is that since it no longer has a separate municipal council it no longer exists - but Faizabad and Ayodhya shared the same municipal council from 1865 to 1978 - see Ayodhya Municipal Corporation. The old names of the division and districts need to be mentioned in articles, as does the date of the change of names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyderabad. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Kindly self revert your edit waring action] and to avoid blocking kindly do not involve in edit warring nor indulge other users  :) Omer123hussain (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ludvikus

Hi toddy1. Do you remember me? You awarded me a merit badge.

I would like to be unblocked. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ludvikus: I never really understood why you were blocked. I know you annoyed people - and they said so in block/unblock discussions - but I never followed the discussions closely enough to understand what you did that led to the blocks. Part of the problem was that I learned to work with you. So I tended to see the good in you. Since you sent the above message, I have looked at some stuff in the archives.

• You need to try to understand what behaviours you engaged in that caused people to want you blocked. It does not matter that they also had faults - unblock requests are about your behaviour.
• Then you need to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.
• Then you need to make an unblock request using: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here ~~~~}}.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do the needful.

Hi @Toddy1 Please move the pages if you think this much discussion at Talk:Allahabad railway division for page move is ok. And if we still need to wait tell me, I am willing to do that too. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not allowed to move a page in the middle of a move discussion. The process is that an independent person needs to adjudicate on the discussion and make a decision.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I know. I thought that you might move and close the discussion

Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(1) I contributed to the discussion, so it is forbidden for me to close the discussion.

(2) Discussions are meant to take at least a week (they sometimes take a month). The discussion was started on 16 July. So it should not be closed before 23 July.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please help

Hello @Toddy1 It looks like I have detected a sockpuppet of a blocked user @Marxist Economist. The user goes by Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP. I am sharing you a link that shows they have common interest. Between 2023-01-03 and 2023-09-02 on en.wikipedia.org User:Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP (talk | contribs) and User:Marxist Economist (talk | contribs) both made edits to some pages in common. You can see a chronological list of all their edits on the Interaction Timeline or a table view on the Interaction Analyser. Please help to find some more proof to report. Or if you can help will be great. The user is editing on same pattern as of user blocked. The pages are also exactly same. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see that:

• Marxist Economist was blocked on 9 August, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP's account was created on 26 August 2023.
• Interaction Analyser shows that 79% of Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP's edits were to pages previously edited by Marxist Economist.
• They both edit at about same times of day.^[14][15]
• Marxist Economist used an edit summary 30% of the time, which is about the same as Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP who uses one 34% of the time.^[16][17]
• Neither makes much use of talk pages.^[18][19]

You need to provide some examples of similar edits, in the form of diffs. (I explained to you on your talk page how to make diffs.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Question - what was it that made you think they were the same?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You said The user is editing on same pattern as of user blocked. Please can you elaborate on this and provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Question - do you also suspect Deepak20032? If not, what was it that made you suspect Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP but not Deepak20032. Deepak20032's account was created on 10 August 2023; he/she never used edit summaries, and 8 out his/her 12 edits were to a page edited by Marxist Economist and Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP. Marxist Economist's edits often had (Tag: Visual edit), as do Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP's edits, but Deepak20032's edits had (Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit), which suggests either a different person or a different device used for editing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I never saw @Deepak20032. Its the first time I am seeing him. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1 see this. The user here Revision as of 17:45, 2 September 2023 added same map image which was created by Wikimedia Commons sock of Marxist Economist who goes by the name of Indian Marxist Politician there. I think the examples you gave here must be enough. I am reporting him now. I would also request if you can contribute then please help. And your said you think that Deepak is also a sock please add him too with proof. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marxist Economist Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The diff was helpful, but it took me about an hour and a half to understand what was going on. I have commented, and added a checkuser request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am highly obliged for your help @Toddy1. Thanks for the help and sorry for the inconvenience that happened to you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement is correct

All the sources are from one book, so the statement is correct. Nowhere it is said that there are no other sources. Lugij (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Talk:Conquest of Mecca#Clean up.?

There is a much better, more concise version of the background in the version of 20:38, 21 December 2013 (which is referenced in Talk:Conquest of Mecca#Clean up).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning 2

Ignoring the earlier requests you keep spoiling and deleting the article Hyderabad section, it include deleting an entire section without discussing on talk page and in-fact it also include deleting the warnings given to you on your talk page.

• I removed your duplicate ref name "McCann(1994)-p6" which you gave in this edit.
• It is a fa article, and it uses a certain style, which was suggested during multiple stages of article's reviews, copyedits, and other processes. if you are keen to maintain the article, please go thru the articles archived talk pages before making any changes, because it will impact on the articles style and fashion of citation and other arrangements, which will lead to its delisting from fa.

If you continue editing with such destructive attitude it will be reported which may effect to restrict your editing rights. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You raised the same issue at Talk:Hyderabad#citation style changes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My request is not to delete this edit from English Wikipedia

Santa Das Kathiababa is a famous 18th century Indian Hindu spiritual leader, social worker and religious guru.My request is not to delete this edit from English Wikipedia. Thank you Srabanta Deb (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Santa Sas Kathiababa was a Hindu spiritual leader, social worker, and Hindu religious guru. Why is this edit repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia? A famous person is being disrespected by repeatedly deleting their edits. His followers are expressing a lot of grief. So his followers demand that this edit not be deleted from Wikipedia. Srabanta Deb (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Feodosia: map spam

Feodosia lat,long:

• 45.048889,35.379167 = spam (current)
• 45.022496,35.3231897 = Genoese Fortress, Feodosia
• 45.0214958,35.3970795 = Genoese fortress, Starokarantynna Street, Feodosia
• 45.022038,35.400664 = File:Feodosiya Genoese fortress of Caffa IMG 2991 1725.jpg
• 45.022378, 35.400333 = lower Tower, Genoese fortress, Starokarantynna Street, Feodosia
• 45.0215621,35.3992733 = upper Tower, Genoese fortress, Starokarantynna Street, Feodosia

Since "upper Tower, Genoese fortress" is intact and clear in satellite imagery I chose 45.0215621,35.3992733.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sock's Disruptive edits

Thanks for notifying the talk pages discussion to me, I strongly believe this user:Wikiking123454321 is a sock of @Toomanyyearskodakblack / @SahafatKaLover18 see same behavior violating WP:BOLP, vandalism, personal attacks, political agenda base edits at the same articles [20], [21]. I hope admin @Bbb23: & @Yamla: will deal with him. 223.123.86.10 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I cannot see a sock puppet investigation for them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Please could you start one, explaining why you think that he/she is a sock. It is probably a good idea to set checkuser=y in the request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Monopoly board

Is this your own creation? Seems like a quite instructive forewarning. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I copied it from another Wikipedia user's talk page. This search shows it is on 23 user pages and user talk pages (in at least one of these you have to uncollapse a collapse-box).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I spent a few minutes browsing through your contributions and I really admire what you bring to this beautiful encyclopedia. Wikipedia appears to be undergoing a negative transformation due to persistent online advocates who rigidly adhere to their own interpretation of what an encyclopedia should be. These individuals exhibit an attitude of superiority and scorn, contributing to an environment that feels bureaucratic and uninviting for potential new editors. Thank you for upholding the true purpose of Wikipedia. Padurina (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Padurina only made 51 edits to Wikipedia,^[22] so you might think that he/she did not have enough experience of Wikipedia to make a judgement. But in reality he/she has been editing since 31 October 2020 under something like 218 accounts.^{Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prince Of Roblox}-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You deserve this more than me

Shaan Sengupta has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

@Toddy1 you deserve this more than me. Without you I would never have been able to do it. It feels so nice to see that you have always been guiding me whenever I go wrong. Someday when you request for being an administrator I shall be the first one to give my vote in favour for you. (Ofc if I still will be here. There are people who don't like me because of my political alignment.) Cheers buddy. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thought it was over

Hi @Toddy1 I thought it was over since the last comment was three days before. I tried to carry forward the discussion at Capital talk page. Nigej got in and told me about my mistake and asked me to revert. I have done that. Do I need to do something more. Because I now want to get out of that thing. I have given 5b days of my time to that. I no longer want to be a part of this. Do I need to apologise for closing it. If yes please tell I will do so. I just want to get out of there ASAP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Do I need to apologise for closing it - no. Just try not to do it again.

I do not think that you should have closed the discussions at WP:ANI (1) (2). On your own talk page, it is OK for you to close a discussion. On other talk pages it is not a good idea to close a discussion where you are involved. WP:ANI has an archiving bot that archives sections where the most recent post is three days old, so there really is no need to close discussions like you did at WP:ANI. The time when closing a discussion is a good thing is when admins have made a decision – but then leave it to the admins to close it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you are doing well, Toddy1. Well, mistakes happen to everyone. I remember a discussion on the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance's talk page about an abbreviation, in which Shaan Sengupta and I were involved. Shaan Sengupta closed that discussion, but I did not agree with the decision. Due to my busy schedule, I was unable to get involved in that matter again. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheChunky, The votes that came were only in favour of I.N.D.I.A. Last comment was on 20th July and I closed it on 9 August. Since there was no more comments or votes I closed it there only. There was a big gap of nearly 20 days. We can continue this at my talk page if you want. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope that if @Toddy1 gets involved in this discussion as a not-involved user, the discussion will come to an end quickly. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok @Toddy1 thanks for the advice. I shall act accordingly in future. I closed them because last comment was three days before. Anyways Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Archive

Hello Toddy1, i was wondering if you could help with a talk page archive bot that would possibly archive discussions in a day or two please (preferably a day), I'll keep an eye for the response. Thank you. shelovesneo (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have done the following to the archive bot configuration:

• counter =1 [changed],
• minthreadsleft =0 [changed],
• minthreadstoarchive =1 [changed],
• age of last thread in section before it is archived =15 days [unchanged].

I would expect the bot to archive some sections at some point in the next 36 hours. I will check to see if that happens.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a second problem. Some archiving had been done to User talk:Shelovesneo/Archive 139. I have moved this to User talk:Shelovesneo/Archive 1. This fixes the problem that your archive header was not showing any archives.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Neo the Twin/Archive 139 is a redirect. I have changed the target to User talk:Shelovesneo/Archive 1. I have blanked User talk:Shelovesneo/Archive 139. Do you want me to request a speedy delete for User talk:Shelovesneo/Archive 139?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added signatures to unsigned posts in two sections. Archive bots need posts to be signed so that they can work out whether to archive the section or not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It worked.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you mate. shelovesneo (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Santa Das Kathiababa's register has been attached with ample references today.

Santa Das Kathiababa's register has been attached with ample references today.

Why are you repeatedly trying to delete this registration even though there are enough references in these registrations Srabanta Deb (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There are deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Das Kathiababa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopalji Radhabihari Ashram (Santdham).

Regarding your claim that I am repeatedly trying to delete the article on Santa Das Kathiababa, well:

• I did not participate in the deletion discussion in August 2021. The result of the discussion was "soft delete".
• It was somebody else who moved the article to draft in November 2021.
• It was somebody else who moved the article to draft in January 2022.
• I did not participate in the deletion discussion in March 2022. The result of the discussion was "delete".
• I did participate in the deletion discussion in March 2023. The result of the discussion was "speedy delete".
• It was somebody else who moved the article to draft in May 2023.
• It was somebody else who asked for the article to be speedy deleted in May 2023.
• I am participating in the deletion discussion in September 2023.

Perhaps right question is why do you keep creating the same article, even though it keeps getting deleted? -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at this, shouldn't we have an official name as discussed by you here? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted the IP editor and explained in (1) the edit summary, and (2) the editor's talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi @Toddy1. I am back here to seek your help. You helped me in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marxist Economist. Because of your help it was successful. I have noticed another sock and have filed a report. I need your help to make it more strong. Please help me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dibyanand02. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Here is a list of the editors in chronological order (the number of edits is live edits - quite a few have deleted edits)

• Special:Contributions/Dibyanand02, 22 edits between 2 and 5 September 2012. Created Draft:Nand Nama, also edited Lakhisarai and Lakhisarai district .
  • Also edits Commons.^[23]
• Special:Contributions/Lal chowk Ramchandrapur Lakhisarai, 1 edit on 24 May 2015. Article edited: Lakhisarai
• Special:Contributions/Lal chowk Ramchandrapur, 5 edits on 8 June 2015. Articles edited: Lakhisarai and Draft:Nand Nama. The main effects of the edits to Draft:Nand Nama were to remove the infobox and change the name from Nand Nama to Ramchandrapur.
• Special:Contributions/Gopalkrsingh10, 3 edits between 14 July and 1 August 2017, 10 edits between 12 January and 24 February 2019, and 1 edit on 3 February 2021.
  • Also edits Commons.^[24]
• Special:Contributions/Thakur Love Chauhan, 17 edits between 6 September and 19 August 2021 and 1 edit on 22 July 2022.
  • Also edits Commons and Hindi Wikipedia.^[25]
• Special:Contributions/Atharva Pratap Singh Chauhan, 25 edits between 26 March and 27 December 2022.
• Special:Contributions/Rajesh Chauhan87, 36 edits between 26 April and 6 September 2022.
  • Also edits Commons.^[26]
• Special:Contributions/Guddu Chauhan Official, 14 edits between 6 and 8 September 2023.
  • Also edits Commons and Hindi Wikipedia.^[27]
• Special:Contributions/Its Guddu Chauhan, 96 edits between 6 September and 2 October 2023.
  • Also edits Commons and Hindi Wikipedia.^[28]

It seems likely that Lal chowk Ramchandrapur Lakhisarai and Lal chowk Ramchandrapur are the same person because of the similarity of name and interests, but their edits were eight years ago. Checkuser will not help unless they have been logging in but not editing (and possibly not then).

It seems unlikely that Dibyanand02 is Lal chowk Ramchandrapur Lakhisarai/Lal chowk Ramchandrapur. Dibyanand02 called the place Nand Nama, but Lal chowk Ramchandrapur Lakhisarai tried to change the name in the article to Ramchandrapur.

The name suggests that all the Chauhan accounts might be the same person.

You need to explain why you think these accounts are the same person (other than the similarities of some of the account names and their interests).

• Do they have similar editing patterns?
• Have different accounts made the same mistakes?
• Or similar ways of phrasing things.

I think there might be something in that many of the accounts also use Commons, and some also use Hindi Wikipedia. But you need to find some similarities in their edits/uploads there if you want to use that as evidence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I have given more evidences. Shown connection between English Wikipedia and Commons. Also I have corrected one mistake that you made. Please see. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What is it that would make admins think that these nine are the same person but these two are not? This does not come across at SPI. It needs to.

In an SPI I did yesterday I showed that the two accounts had made the same error with putting an image in the infobox of an article.^{Srabanta Deb Radha Krishna Nama} Can you find stuff like that to support your SPI?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)