Hello, RogerYg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please
sign your name on
talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are
semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible
templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only
administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been
blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on
Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the
citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A
WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See
this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Noticed your reply now and got confused for a while, totally forgetting that it was me who welcomed you a few months ago. Happy editing! Cheers.
Rasnaboy (
talk)
07:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If you have very long term patience for all Wikipedia policies, reliable source and book research, article expansion by writing in your own words and if above mentioned drafts interest you then you can join them updating.
Bookku (
talk)
12:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You have recently edited a page related to India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the
arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic
here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
It is not to say you have broken any rule, but this is a friendly advance intimation to be aware of ".. editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. .. Violations of this rule often attract blocks.." more info @
WP:3RR. In case of content disagreements users are supposed to follow
WP:DR.
Bookku (
talk)
02:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Do you mind summarizing or fixing your comment on the RfC? The long block of text break the formatting for the next comment. Much of what you wrote is from the previous discussion which can be viewed as per the RfC. Thanks!
Nemov (
talk)
15:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Nemov, Okay, I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, could you clarify the Rfc topic with some specifics, such Whether Agreeing to keep the language NPOV , such as Some of Vivek's statements may be considered Climate change denial by some fact checkers, avoiding strong "defaming" label as "Climate change denier".
RogerYg (
talk)
15:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a separate topic and I suspect that will be clarified by other comments. The section is about policies and opinions of Vivek. There's no need to get into the weeds about what some people think about his opinions in a biography of living person.
Nemov (
talk)
15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I still think the current Rfc topic will get lots of Yes, as many news articles have said that Vivek's comments are about Climate denial, so the Rfc should be whether to use Balanced Neutral language or have put strong CLimate denial opening or closing statements from News articles
RogerYg (
talk)
15:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
If that's how the RfC goes so be it. I didn't create it with a single objective in mind. The previous discussion was going on and on and this is a reasonable way to find a solution.
Nemov (
talk)
16:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
September 2023
Hi RogerYg! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Hardeep Singh Nijjar several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Hi
VQuakr (
talk), I am regularly involved in TALK page discussions on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page based on WP policies, since that page was created, and trying to make the page WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I am aware of
edit warring policy and mostly avoid reverts, instead I focus on developing balanced & agreeable neutral language. Also, restoring the previous Consensus based on TALK page discussion is generally not considered edit warring. THe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date. Meanwhile, I am involved in improving some parts on Indian allegations and pointing out Unsourced material as per WP:RS. But, I appreciate your point and will try to have better dispute resolution going forward.
RogerYg (
talk)
20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus for either formulation of the first sentence. It is the subject of active discussion on the talk page. Claiming "consensus" where none exists is poor form. But to be clear, "restoring the previous consensus" absolutely is still edit warring. The exemptions at
WP:3RRNO are intentionally very narrow.
VQuakr (
talk)
21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Please note tHe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date.
RogerYg (
talk)
21:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, it can be called edit warring because that is what it is, you enforcing your preferred version. Multiple other editors have expressed agreement with the inclusion on the talk page.
VQuakr (
talk)
21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
But I appreciate your point and I generally avoid "restoring the previous consensus" if the edior is active on the page, I agree that we need to try to find agreeable language and avoid edit warring.
RogerYg (
talk)
21:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear Ghost of Dan Gurney, Well, I appreciate your note on Canvassing and I respect Consensus building as per WP:CON and regularly engage in constructive discussions on TALK pages to develop WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I have only informed 2 or 3 engaged editors about Rfc as friendly notices. I assume your message is also in good faith, but I hope you know that it's against Wikpedia policies to intimidate another Wiki editor, as it can be a violation as per Wikipedia:WikiBullying policies.
Hello, I'm
HaeB. I noticed that you recently
removed content from
Hindu American Foundation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism.HaeB (
talk)
02:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
HaeB, I appreciate your concern on WP:NPOV, but we also have to take note of WP:RS, WP:Priority among others. I have tried to explain each edit, though I am happy to explain again, as needed. I have tried to give priority to Well cited content over Opinion as per WP:RS, while also including balanced view as per WP:NPOV. About the example, One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism.. As per WP:LAYOUT the lead can have broader overview and specific details can go in the body. Following that guideline, I have replaced it more broad language: opposing any legislation that unfairly targets the ''Hindu community''., which is also cited in a WP:RS source that I was about to add. I will try to give more details on edits and also we can discuss the same on the TALK page of HAF.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Thanks for the alert. I sincerely follow WP policies citing High quality WP:RS sources, using WP:NPOV neutral language, and avoid any Edit-warring or Reverts. I provide WP policy and reasons for any contentious update.
RogerYg (
talk)
08:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Your interpretation of said policies is incorrect and consequently your edits to the Vivek Ramaswamy article have been undone. Note that
WP:NPOV does not mean we have to use non-discriminate language. It means we present facts with weight that reflects their coverage in reliable sourcing. Please read
WP:DUE.--
Jasper Deng(talk)20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Grabup, I think this message is more appropriate for new editors. I already have over 1500 edits and have also created several new Wikipedia articles, but I appreciate your kind suggestions, and probably I am relatively in-experienced with Movie articles.
RogerYg (
talk)
09:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello RogerYg! Your additions to
Consecration of the Ram Mandir have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added
copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the
public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a
suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent
copyright and
plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to
copyright issues and is not permitted; see
Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still
cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being
blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Moneytrees🏝️, I appreciate the information on Copyright. I did not copy the material as such, and I had paraphrased the content, which is from a HT Newspaper article, but as it was mostly factual details, I probably did not paraphrase enough.
Thanks for bringing up the issue, and I will take even more care on paraphrasing in the future.
The
'pran pratishtha' of the idol of Ram Lalla (childhood form of Lord Ram) will be attended by people from all walks of life, including representatives of major spiritual and religious sects of the country, representatives of various tribal communities and prominent personalities, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi presiding over the grand ceremony. A team of priests led by Lakshmikant Dixit will perform the main rituals.
Please note that, per the
verifiability policy, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a
reliable source" and "All material in
Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." Please do not add your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, as
original research ("material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists") is prohibited in article space.
Hi Newslinger, I am no defender of Butler, but as I take WP:BLP seriously. I think WP:BLP applies to this article as SIF is closely linked to Butler. Most of the discussion above is disregarding WP:BLP considerations. In WP:BLP articles, words such as ''unproven", ''unsubstantiated'' can be added to provide WP:NPOV and neutral view against unproven charges being put on a Living person. Many charges in the source are potentially "libelous" charges, which has not been proven in any court of law. Infact, as cited in the sources, Butler has never been charged with any offence, and has been cleared of the charges. My intention in adding those words was WP:NPOV based on source "Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.". Again, my intention was only to follow WP:BLP sincerely, along with WP:NPOV and WP:Neutrality. Anyway, I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue, and open to healthy discussion. Thanks
RogerYg (
talk)
05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, thanks for clarifying about WP:BLP. I appreciate the guidance from an experienced editor.
Also note, my last edit to SIF was May 16th, and the TALK page discussion on this issue began on May 19th, so I have not made any edit after the discussion began on the issue. I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue.
RogerYg (
talk)
06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Newslinger , While, I was sincerily trying to followWikipedia:Biographies of living personsalong with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy in the SIF article, I will take note this warning and try to avoid any comments that are not cited in WP:RS sources. All my entries are with cited WP:RS sources, but in SIF article, I tried to provide a WP:NPOV balanced language, which has been interpreted as commentary or personal analysis. Anyway, I take this warning seriously, and would limit anything that is not directly supported by WP:RS sources. I will try to sincerely follow
verifiability policy going forward.
Also note, my last edit to SIF was May 16th, and the TALK page discussion on this issue began on May 19th, so I have not made any edit after the discussion began on the issue. I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue as per TALK page discussion. If you see my contributions, I spend a lot of effort in healthy TALK page discussions, and happy to follow consensus view. Thanks.
RogerYg (
talk)
06:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC).reply
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
Tulsi Gabbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Armenian.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
J.D. Vance. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Well, I am discussing every JD Vance edit on its TALK page trying to build consensus, so I disagree that I am edit-warring. But, I will take a break from JD Vance page for next 2 days, to avoid any edit warring, if perceived.
Meanwhile, as I mentioned on Talk page there, we must be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, and contentious claims about living persons have higher level of WP:RS and WP:NPOV consideration.
I have no intention of edit warring, just to keep the article per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and try to build consensus per WP:TALK, as you may see, I have much more entries on TALK page than in the article. Thanks.
RogerYg (
talk)
04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If this is indeed a contentious claim about a living person then you should not be restoring it without a clear consensus to do so... I'm not sure I understand that argument (but I also don't think that any of the claims are contentious).
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I agree about "pornography ban" (social issues), there is no consensus, and you can restore your version including pornography ban, preferbaly with sources, if you want. I will not change it unless there is a consensus against it, though I still lthink it appears to be contentious for the Lead. Thanks.
RogerYg (
talk)
04:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I read the source article, and found that the way we were including the content was misleading as it did not clarify that his repect of Obama was only about their childhood struggles, while he disagrred with his politically.
Also, Clinton was initial influence on both him and his grandmother in the article as:
Still, I admired President Clinton in a way that happens when someone like you really makes it. He was a poor boy with a vaguely Southern accent, raised by a single mother with a heavy dose of loving grandparents. As my grandmother told me, presidents were almost always rich people, but Bill Clinton was one of us.
Therefore, I felt the including Clinton reflected the article better.
Finally, I felt that including both Clinton and Obama may be WP:Undue as the point was already made with Clinton as a poor boy, and it may be misleading to include that he was influenced by 2 presidents, both Democracts.
Therefore, I mentioned my reasons for the edit: misleading and WP:UNDUE detail
I did not want to be WP:NPOV.
I am happy to revert that edit to include Obama mention, but as per WP:NPOV we should add a qualifier that he disagreed politically with Obama, though he respected his childhood struggles.
Well, I am happy to include the Obama mention, but adding it in Personal life section, seems overloading the section, and somewhat misleading. Probably Early life, or "Relationship with Trump" sections are more appropriate, as the Obama comment was in contrast to recent Rebuplican presidents, such as Trump.
It is one of the great failures of recent political history that the Republican Party was too often unable to disconnect legitimate political disagreements from the fact that the president himself is an admirable man.
On Jan. 20, the political side of my brain will breathe a sigh of relief at Mr. Obama’s departure. I will hope for better policy from the new administration, a health reform package closer to my ideological preferences, and a new approach to foreign policy.
But the child who so desperately wanted an American dream, with a happy family at its core will feel something different. For at a pivotal time in my life, Barack Obama gave me hope that a boy who grew up like me could still achieve the most important of my dreams.
I have added it back in the personal section, just in the different paragraph, where it fits best. Thanks.
In a 2017
New York Times article, he noted that as a child who wanted the American dream, the personal success story of Barack Obama, growing up in a low-income family with a single-mother, gave him hope; and Vance felt that he had achieved something similar to Obama's early personal accomplishments: "a prestigious law degree, a strong professional career and a modicum of fame as a writer." [1]
I have added "though he also mentioned his political disagreements with Obama." to have balanced and more WP:NPOV language. Thanks.
RogerYg (
talk)
22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply