User talk:Fylindfotberserk/Archives/2024/October

Regarding recent changes on T. Raja Singh

diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._Raja_Singh&curid=43489794&diff=1248954677&oldid=1248921353

You changed all dates to the format DD January, YYYY from YYYY-MM-DD stating MOS:NUM. However, even when it is YYYY-MM-DD, it is rendered and displayed as the format specified there. The intention of making it YYYY-MM-DD is to make it standardized, allowing computers to parse it such as the IA bot which archives links (and also puts the archive date in the format YYYY-MM-DD).

I don't see the point of your change since the end output is the same.

Just wanted to discuss before reverting such a change. Skratata69 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As clearly mentioned on MOS:NUM, it is acceptable to use YYYY-MM-DD for references, which is what I did Skratata69 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69: Why would you want to revert it when DMY and MDY are standard date formats in most of Wikipedia articles instead of YYYY-MM-DD. The purpose of the script is to maintain the format type of articles pertaining to the country it is related to. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

because of ambiguities in DMY and MDY. YYYY-MM-DD is the ISO format, as well as an accepted format on wiki.

All of this is irrelevant because the end output is still the same. It was displayed as 1 January, 2024 before and after your change so I am asking what was the point of you changing it from simple number format that is better understood by scripts and bots to this. Skratata69 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69: Read at the examples MOS:DATETIES MOS:DATEUNIFY as well as MOS:DATERET. You can't all of a sudden unilaterally change the longstanding formatting style of an article. If you want changes made, you propose it somewhere where YMD is accepted at a global level and thus affects all the articles of Wikipedia. As I said, the formatting is mostly in DMY or MDY format in edit mode in most of the articles. This is an unnecessary discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Need protection

Hey Fylindfotberserk, some users are vandalizing Maithili language, Mithila (region), and many more articles related to Maithili, making wrong maps of Mithila region like [[User:Kusinara|Kusinara]] and [[User:Bihar region|Bihar region]] have done! Maithil hoon (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maithil hoon: As I've explained in your talk page, you should seek WP:CONSENSUS in the respective talk pages with other users per WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes on T. Raja Singh

diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._Raja_Singh&curid=43489794&diff=1248954677&oldid=1248921353

You changed all dates to the format DD January, YYYY from YYYY-MM-DD stating MOS:NUM. However, even when it is YYYY-MM-DD, it is rendered and displayed as the format specified there. The intention of making it YYYY-MM-DD is to make it standardized, allowing computers to parse it such as the IA bot which archives links (and also puts the archive date in the format YYYY-MM-DD).

I don't see the point of your change since the end output is the same.

Just wanted to discuss before reverting such a change. Skratata69 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As clearly mentioned on MOS:NUM, it is acceptable to use YYYY-MM-DD for references, which is what I did Skratata69 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69: Why would you want to revert it when DMY and MDY are standard date formats in most of Wikipedia articles instead of YYYY-MM-DD. The purpose of the script is to maintain the format type of articles pertaining to the country it is related to. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

because of ambiguities in DMY and MDY. YYYY-MM-DD is the ISO format, as well as an accepted format on wiki.

All of this is irrelevant because the end output is still the same. It was displayed as 1 January, 2024 before and after your change so I am asking what was the point of you changing it from simple number format that is better understood by scripts and bots to this. Skratata69 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skratata69: Read at the examples MOS:DATETIES MOS:DATEUNIFY as well as MOS:DATERET. You can't all of a sudden unilaterally change the longstanding formatting style of an article. If you want changes made, you propose it somewhere where YMD is accepted at a global level and thus affects all the articles of Wikipedia. As I said, the formatting is mostly in DMY or MDY format in edit mode in most of the articles. This is an unnecessary discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Need protection

Hey Fylindfotberserk, some users are vandalizing Maithili language, Mithila (region), and many more articles related to Maithili, making wrong maps of Mithila region like [[User:Kusinara|Kusinara]] and [[User:Bihar region|Bihar region]] have done! Maithil hoon (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maithil hoon: As I've explained in your talk page, you should seek WP:CONSENSUS in the respective talk pages with other users per WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of non-Hindi songs recorded by Udit Narayan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dhadkan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD Help

Hello @Fylindfotberserk Sir, I have some confusion regarding notability of a Surgeon i.e. David S. Feldman, he is a orthopaedic surgeon and have also written some papers on NIH. but i think that there are no any secondry reliable sources which discuss about the subject to establish notability and also he didnt received any prestigious award so i am having confusion that should i nominate it for deletion or not. Thanks again sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: You may start an AfD IMO, since the article lacks enough secondary sources (there is only one). Let's see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: Most welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Fylindfotberserk i also encountered another page i.e., Dror Paley who runs paley institue in which David S. Feldman also works, his article also dosent have independent reliable sources which discuss in depth about him and also he don’t received any prestigious award. I nominated the previous one for AfD should I nominate this also. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: Another resume like article. Nominate it as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Fylindfotberserk today I encountered a article which was visited by some experienced editors but no one nominated it for deletion. I am talking about Michael Stein, i think this article does not qualify for WP:GNG or WP:NPROF because there are no independent sources which discuss about the subject in depth and also he is not not a vice chancellor or dean of any university, so i think he is absolutely not notable for having standalone articles. Should i nominate this well ??. And again thanks for your constant help sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: Yes, absolutely. I wonder how so many pages like these are kept. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I also wonderd how some experienced editors avoid these things. Nomination Done. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Serious concerns

Hi @Fylindfotberserk, I am not going to comment on the talk page of the Nanda Empire as I have repeated the same things, God knows how many times. But certain points I want to make to you regarding the editor in question:

1.) Relentless pushing of Krishna as a terrorist using a unique unknown source [1]. Funnily enough, these are the same people who label Al Qaeda, Maoists, Naxals, Lashkar, and Hamas as freedom fighters.

2.) The issue of continuous editing using their own inflammatory sources while the discussion is ongoing is an old habit of the editor: [2]. @Jtbobwaysf also noted that on [3]. Also, the editor choses to ignore that 'Brahmanism' is an inflammatory term coined by colonial powers and missionaries, just like 'hinayana' was coined by Mahayana Buddhists for orthodox Buddhists. Also, funny that this editor considers Witzel the ultimate authority but still won’t use Witzel’s dates as authoritative for Buddhism. Huh?

3.) It’s not limited to one Hindu or India-related page— inserting opinions as facts like they did on the Geeta page by adding that Geeta is definitely influenced by Buddhism (when Sāṃkhya is already mentioned). Then, when they found out that Sāṃkhya is known as an orthodox Hindu school that considers the Veda as the source of all knowledge, they went on the Samkhya page, pushed the dates of the Vedas, and inserted Buddhacharita (which was composed extremely late in 200 CE) along with the middle Upanishads and Geeta. They created a whole "proto-classical Sāṃkhya" section, which is not a scholarly term. On the other hand, they remove "classical Hinduism" (which is a scholarly term) wherever they can, replacing it with just "Hinduism." There was not even a fragment of Buddhacharita composed when the Geeta was fully composed and quoted day and night by Buddhists. Also, they push "South Asia" instead of "India" wherever they can while promoting "China" instead of "East Asia," if you have noticed. like her [4]. Look how they got rattled when someone changed Confucius’ place to East Asia from China, accusing them of double standards while firmly adhering to their own.

4.) They themselves changed the lead of the Hinduism page, making it "an umbrella term for various Indian religions and traditions unified by the concept of dharma." By this very definition, they made Buddhism, Vedic religion, so-called Brahmanism, Jainism, etc., part of Hinduism. So if it’s an umbrella term, then what’s the point of asserting "this was not Hinduism," "that was not Hinduism," "only synthesis is Hinduism," etc.? Pushing their views as general consensus is an old habit. I’ve told them a zillion times that common people, in the majority, can never be ascetics, especially at a time when no middle-ground schools of Buddhism had been created. Also, there were much earlier ascetic and Sāṃkhya movements than Buddhism. Still, they continuously crib about "What about common people?" "What about common people?"

5.) When someone is motivated, they don’t care about truth; they only care about POV pushing. But the problem is they are confused about how to properly POV push and on which page to add what to make more sense. Also, check out the Shakti page and the image they chose (which was later removed). I was fine with the image, but just look at the comment when this image was added to the Ātman page: [5]. That at least tells me something about the intent.

6.) Also, look at the Yoga page where they added the Jain part [6], using the Jain traditional date of 900 BC rather than the scholarly date to push their view that Yoga may just be totally non-Vedic. Also, there is no known Jainism before Mahavira (which is also dubious).

7.)Now, I have let it go. Whatever makes them happy and sleep better at night. So, I will not comment on all this nonsense on the respective talk page. I have already fought enough and concluded that I cannot change the inherent nature of anyone. They can have their little little moment of happiness Also, the person seems to get away with whatever they do, so it’s not worth fighting. I am no one and have no connections or influence. I am only letting you know in case you didn’t know, and you are a grandmaster editor who might not be fully aware of all this as people are busy with their lives. Although, I don’t have much hope from anyone to stop the vilification of Hindu and India-related pages, as there are more haters out there. These editors are the exact reason Wiki will one day get blocked in India. Then all their POV-pushing work—who will read? Their main target audience to mislead will disappear. Also, I can’t do this anymore; it’s the responsibility of concerned senior editors and admins, not mine. For some reason i thought you should know. I have given up. Too many of them. DangalOh (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This guy isn't a scholar of the subject matter. Only notable per WP:NPOL. Also, sources coming from this person is likely to be "non-neutral" considering he is the "the patriarch of the Marxist school of Indian historiography". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

But who cares? As potato potatoes, tomato tomatoes, POV pushers POV pushates. And I also didn't know scholars can be labeled unreliable based on some of their comments on certain unrelated hypotheses (hypotheses are hypotheses; they are not facts with empirical evidence; that's the very reason they are called hypotheses). Everyone has their own hypotheses. Non-acceptance of a hypothesis in mainstream discourse doesn’t make the person making or supporting some other hypothesis unreliable as a whole. But anyway, it’s not about selectively using sources where it suits and disregarding those where it doesn’t. This POV-pushing motivation by some editors is much deeper than that. As I said, FYI, I have given up. I am not properly equipped to deal with evil of such a kind. You guys are veterans and may know what to do here better than I do. Maybe in the future, Wikipedia will be better. Right now, it’s crazy. I have fought alone for far too long. I have also messed up my studies for so many days. I have a big career-changing exam coming up in November. I’ll be mostly absent here. But as I said, haters outnumber at least 5 to 1, so I don’t know how even you or others will be able to keep up with this. Well, I am only 27 years old, so I have my whole life to get back at these people properly. For Wikipedia, I don’t care about it intensely anymore. Thanks and have a good day. DangalOh (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)