User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 2

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ARUNEEK. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2016 Uri attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to add reliable sources for any new content. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Iridescent. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2016 Uri attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sons and daughters of Manila[edit]

Hi, you have reviewed the page, but there is also a speedy deletion nomination. Please give me more information. Thanks.--Buchbibliothek (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing List of sons and daughters of Manila, ARUNEEK.

Unfortunately NearEMPTiness has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The content of List of sons and daughters of Manila should be manually copied and pasted into List of people from Manila. Then List of sons and daughters of Manila should be deleted, please.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

October 2016[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2016 Uri attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. ~~Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted.~~ If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir with utmost respect,I can't find out about any edit you reverted recently!!!!???Can you be more particular????And you can be more than sure, I know what a constructive edit is!!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "The claim of surgical strikes was false says Pakistan and probably an effort to improve image of Mr. Narendra Moodi in domestic politics." violates the policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research and is also presented in a bad manner and style.Also the replacement of the heading of the section-"Military conflict" was uncalled for!!!.

Further,probably only MalikAttaRasool knows ,from where he found out that the most of the protesters killed were-Anti Indians.For your kind information,a chunk of the people who died were not even involved in the protests!!!

That Burhan Wani is not a student leader (as proposed by MalikAttaRasool) but rather a militant is deemed from here,which clearly specifies his allegiance to Hizbul Mujahideen-a well designated terrorist organisation!!!!

Also,the attack by the terrorists on the base is obviously an ambush, not a raid!!!.

I am also similarly unsure about his motives of addition of a reference to a line which has got nothing to do with it(except voicing the Pakistani claims)!!!!

Overall, the edit sorrily speaks of ethnocentric attitude!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute the tendency towards ethnocentric bias in contentious articles such as this; I just think that your attempts to remove any criticism of India from the article has a similar effect. You told Iridescent below that some of your edits were made in haste- perhaps, in view of the discretionary sanctions that cover the topic, this is a case of 'Less haste, less speed' as it were...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough time to ponder over this edit!!!And you are free to revert my edits iff you can counter my points as stated above!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, my only bias was towards the strong term-"Anti Indians".Barring this,I could not but help the rest of the reversions.They are facts,as you can evidently checkAru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I aware what was the conversation and the related diffs nor am I interested in learning about them. What I wanted to clear is people killed in 2016 Kashmir unrest were mostly protesters, though some were innocent (this no. being extremely low though) as it happens in every protest/war. Some innocent generally dies! I don't know what was the conflict about and who reverted whom so treat this just as a bot leaves a comment like an FYI! I hope this sorts out the matter between you both! Varun FEB2003 14:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: Thank you for that, although you clearly demonstrate the very myopia under discussion. As we can see. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I ain't near-sighted! All is that I find it highly eye-watering to read a conversation with full of exclamations, bolding, huge signatures and @ signs! That is the reason! Varun FEB2003 14:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003:Thanks for your intervention!!!None of us reverted the other one's edits.It was regarding the sudden dissemination of a warning!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:I think the matter is settled.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard

“Probably only MalikAttaRasool knows, from where he found out that the most of the protesters killed were-Anti Indians” Government in Kashmir.

Dear I have no doubt about it who is being blinded with pellet guns and who all are dying in Kashmir.. However, for the sake of reference I tell you that I learnt it from BBC.. Here is the link http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37504308 Malik Atta 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Secondly you have said

“The attack by the terrorists on the base is obviously an ambush, not a raid!!!.”

Dear attack on stationary target is not ambush, it is called a raid. An ambush is conducted on moving targets. I had corrected wrong usage of military term. Please check up the difference between Ambush and Raid. I am sure you will not undo every edit which is made by someone who does not go with your line of thinking. Please avoid making Wikipedia the propaganda tool of a specific country.Malik Atta 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — (talk • contribs) Malik Atta 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MalikAttaRasool:For your kind information,I think you believe Oxford Dictionary to be a very good source of information about English words!!!The definition of ambush reads as follows-A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.Also, day to day use of the language informs us that Ambush is reserved generally for terrorist attacks etc. while Raid is reserved for the same actions done by any police force!!No doubt the term ambush is generally used in military terminology for moving targets,but until and unless we find a better word ,I would prefer the term ambush over raid!I have never saw a Reputed Source describing a terrorist attack as a raid!Hope you latch to my point!I understand you reversion in the case of ANTI-INDIANS now!You may reincorporate that!With thanksAru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My dear ARUNEEK

“A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position”

True. This is good definition. “People [who attack] lying in a wait” in concealed position and definitely waiting for their target. That is the precisely my point. So in case of Uri attack, Kashmiri freedom fighters, militants or terrorists; you may call them with any name went to Indian army base at Uri and attacked it. They did not keep waiting for it. Hence, it is not an ambush but a raid. The word ‘raid’ is not reserved for only police force etc. but its use is common. For example McCormack, Timothy LH. The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor.. The Story of the Japanese Raid on Broome, The Doolittle raid: America's daring first strike against Japan and Why do elephants raid crops in Sumatra. Thank you for reading. I believe we can together make Wikipedia better forum for our young ones apart from traditional rivalry and ongoing Indo-Pak politics. Malik Atta 09:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I am ready to support raid! Varun FEB2003 12:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MalikAttaRasool:You obviously, well enough,note it's use other than by police forces.But I would want to highlight upon a particular point-the absence of the word in deeds done by terrorists.On our common course of the Pre-partition Indo-pak independence movement,a revolutionary in the name of Surya Sen with his armed comrades conducted a Raid on Chittagong Armory Depot.But,at that time many prominent newspapers(esp. British ones) heavily denounced the attack and used words like -"ambush perpetrated by terrorists" etc.Later after the Independence of both India and Pakistan , once the activities of the revolutionaries came to be viewed as aspects of a necessary freedom struggle, words gradually changed!!!!So ,i think the usage of definitions are more worthy to be said a function of time and leakage of info!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MalikAttaRasool:I too believe in contributing together towards a better encyclopedia without basking ourselves in the divisive Indo-pak politics Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting AFDs on pages already tagged for deletion[edit]

Please don't nominate articles which are already tagged for speedy deletion (or proposed deletion) for AFD—as you've just done with People intelligence—unless you feel the CSD/PROD is inappropriate and it needs a full discussion (in which case, remove the existing template, replace it with the AFD template, and explain in the AFD nomination why you feel it necessary to send the page for a full discussion). Otherwise, you're either wasting the time of anyone who reads the AFD nomination for a page which has already been deleted, or you waste the time of the deleting admin who will need to close the AFD discussion as well, thus negating the point of speedy deletion. In this particular case, as nobody else had commented on the AFD discussion you started I've deleted the discussion and removed it from the log, since there was no way this page wasn't appropriate for speedy deletion, and there's no point leaving a closed "discussion" involving only one editor cluttering AFD.

As you no doubt know given the number of warnings you've received, you're currently making a lot of mistakes. We welcome new editors, and we certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you're going to involve yourself in technical areas I'd respectfully ask that you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines. You can generally find these by typing "WP:" into the searchbar, followed by the topic in which you're interested—e.g., WP:DELETION will take you to information on our deletion process, WP:IMAGES to our instructions for the use of images, and so on. ‑ Iridescent 08:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a good-faith mistake made by me!!! I probably re-tagged the page for deletion while it was nominated for speedy deletion, which led to the problem!!!Sorry!!!

But I think you should also take a fair look at my positive contributions too!!! You can't override them for some technical mistakes that I have committed unknowingly in haste.

Anyway,Thanks for you clue to easy searching of the internal policies.Cheerio!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disregarding your positive edits—if I were, you'd have been blocked by now for disruption—but "makes good edits" doesn't give you a free pass to cause disruption elsewhere. FIM gives you good advice above regarding acting in haste; one considered edit is a lot more use to Wikipedia than ten rushed ones. (As an aside, would you consider toning down your use of exclamation marks and superfluous bolding? Wikipedia is an academic reference work, not Twitter.) ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.Your advice is worthy enough to be followed!!!(Will try to put aside the style!)(I don't use Twitter!!)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try using a single exclamation when needed looks much much better! Varun FEB2003 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@ARUNEEK: Please stop making nominations for deletion. CSD etc, until you can show that you won't make any more 'honest mistakes' as you did (again) here. Many thanks. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify about my mistake,please?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willingly.

It was created at 14:57. CSD nominated here by another editor. You nominate it for AfD here which you undo here.You then CSD it again (for a wrong reason, incidentally). This is exactly what Iridescent warned about above: everyone's time is being wasted because we now have an article tagged for CSD, and your AfD here, thus duplicating the work to be done. You either do not know or cannot decide what to do, which is why I suggested above that you leave such matters alone. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Sorry,I did not discover the difference between WP:CSD and WP:AFD till now.I thought that both of them serve spproximately the same purpose. A tender apology,for the hassles which resulted from my 2 mistaken-edits. Will ensure my best to prevent it from causing the same mistake any further,now that I am well versed with the details of the 2 policies!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Doomscrewed. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Barsha (Ritu)[edit]

Hello ARUNEEK, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Barsha (Ritu), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a foreign language article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 10:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardens (Pastoral Station)[edit]

There ist a short text there.Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236:That's basically the reason(There are also no important sources over the internet the article!). It is so short that half of the sentence could be retrieved from the title itself! Please do not enlist all non-important places in WIKIPEDIA. Please follow the WP:NGEO policy.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support your point, but you have used wrong śpeedy delete category. You are free to ask froro deletion in another way. I know very little about Australia, so I prefer to not decide.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A word about A11 (and A7)[edit]

A11 (made-up) is not the same as G3 (hoax). It is specially for things like new words, new student drinking games, new field games, and so on. These are things that could be real inventions, but of no note outside the school class or university group where they were thought up. We assume good faith and don't call them hoaxes. Something like a flightpack doesn't come into this (and it doesn't come into A7 either as it's a product not a person, animal or event, and the one in question was well before web content began. Material things and people that are believed to be blatant hoaxes should be tagged G3, but I don't think this one Himmelstürmer Flightpack is blatant. If it is considered to be a hoax, AfD is the place for it. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just come here to make a similar point. Nihal Rahman, a 13 y.o. professional football player in the Indian Super League - I don't think so. Definite G3. Cabayi (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi:Was out-foxed by the article in spite of being heavily aware of the league.(I did not even have a look at his age!) Anyway should have crosschecked the info in the official website. Thanks!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AG Markets[edit]

Hey how are you? You just reviewed and marked my article as promotional and marked it as speedy deletion. I ask you please, to indicate me what parts of the article you want me to change. AG Markets

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksekoliara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ksekoliara: In my opinion-The entire "Tools and services" section shall be removed because while they are good enough to be advertised, they are definitely not something special invented your company and hence should lack a mention in the article.The "History" section is also hackneyed with details of registration number etc....Only the lead section is probably up-to the mark. Further you have to cite data from reliable sources,not from some webpage from their own website! Cheers!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I cannot see it now, can you undelete it? So i can make the changes without having to write again the whole article? Ksekoliara (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ksekoliara:primarily I did not delete it.Only administrators have such power.I just nominated the page for AfD.You can put up a undeletion request at WP:UNDELETE.But , I think you would be more fast if you recreate the article from scratch, strictly conforming to the guidelines of article creation in Wikipedia.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hi! so it's cntrlw the guy from the fiber simulator thingy. i'm new so i'm really unsure. what do i do if i really want to create the page? Cntrlw (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Cntrlw:Your article was nominated the first time for deletion due to it's inherent advertorial nature.The second nomination was due to blanking of the article! You are advised to take a look at WP:AFC for a complete guide to creation of a new article. Also do not forget to check the welcome message in your talk page which consists of links to various policies and norms to be adhered to while editing Wikipedia! Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing SprX small RNA, ARUNEEK.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I do not see how this is original research

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

NPP[edit]

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm but please refrain now from patrolling new pages. This task is not for beginners. A new user right for patrolling new pages is currently being created and when you have reached the required level of experience you will be able to apply for the use of new page patrol tools. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BhavyaBharat[edit]

You have nominated BhavyaBharat for speedy deletion..it should not be deleted because

This is first kind of application providing more than 30 online services and basically providing online services to rural part and it is approved by digital india by indian government and it reduces unemployment and anyone can make money without investment by providing online services to public. Please check all these media articles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZed9U_T2OE - Telecasted in Public Tv Kannada News channel. http://www.bfirst.in/news/itbt/9424/honey-they-shrunk-world http://www.pocketnewsalert.com/2016/06/First-of-its-kind-in-India-Jobs-through-your-Smartphone-App-that-provides-33-services.html

and The application used by rural population in india. and this application founded by Dhananjay Acharya from small village

Paytm is created in wikipedia no use of this.. but this one application providing online services to rural part and reducing unemployment.

This App helping and providing self employment.. but what Paytm company providing they are making money by providing services. but you people keep that page in wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietdhanu (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Quietdhanu:Please check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BhavyaBharat for the discussions regarding the proposed deletion.You may even put up a counter-argument to their views! Further you are requested to see the definition of WP:RS regarding the sources that you have entered on my talk page. Further,if you share grievances against PAYTM, please do not use Wikipedia as a means of personal vendetta! Happy editing! Cheers! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with this. I about a week before placed a speedy deletion tag on this aticle on grounds of the article being about a obscure website. Still now the tag is there and no administrator has either accepted or rejected the speedy deletion! Is there anything to do on my part? is the article. Thank you.

Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK: Hi! Actually, the page was deleted, but was subsequently recreated and nominated for deletion again. The CSD will probably play out, but it looks like several people have been attempting to improve the article, so maybe it is better, and will survive. Hope that explains it! --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

The details you provided have been posted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Dada No KKR (2nd nomination). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:Thanks,for the AfD.Regrets for delay from my end.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 05:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion poll[edit]

Hi Aruneek, can you tell me if you can see this page [1] on Google Books? If you can see, what do the footnotes 22 and 23 say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3.Google Books clearly states "Pages 329-330 are not shown in this preview"!Thus, without having the book at hand/going for other electronic copies of the same book stored elsewhere on the web, it is impossible to describe/comment on footnote 22 and 23.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-note, can you please clarify what circumstances led to this opinion poll? Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. The book says on p.279 that there was another opinion poll and gives results. The details of what poll it was are buried in the footnotes. There is a BBC News article that talks about the Hindustan Times poll too [2]. But it doesn't describe the full results. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3After a detailed crawl in th web, I retrieved this source, from the website of "Cfore" which designed and contributed to the Survey along with HT.Will be happy, if it somehow helps your cause! Is this poll and it's results somehow linked with the article of Jammu and Kashmir.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not it. This is "Cfore" and the date is later than the ET Newsreport. The "Team CVoter" does say that it did a survey for Hindustan Times in 2010 [3]. But where did the results go? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things still don't match. This says they covered "Kashmir, Leh and Laddakh and the Kashmiri refugee camps". Did they mistype "Jammu" as "Leh"? Or, did they cover Jammu at all? The sample size is said to be 1000+. That is pretty far from 2,379 that AFP reports. AFP says the percent favouring independence in the valley was 66%. That is significantly lower than what the Chatham House survey said in the same year. So a lot of things are still fishy. Worst of all, Hindustan Times didn't use the survey. So, they seem to have sold it to AFP. That is the only part makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups[edit]

Hi ARUNEEK, You have removed "Notable people" section from the Bengalis given the explanation you have provided and which is valid, but Gujarati people, Marathi people and Kannada people do have that section. So will you go ahead and do the same. Thanks--Raktakamal (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:Yeah,probably as soon as I get some time...You can also do the same for me!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK: Ok i'll do the marathi people and kannada people. You do the Gujarati people articles is it ok for you.Thanks--Raktakamal (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:Ok.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Gentlemen, just a reminder that the material should only be removed outright if it is duplicated elsewhere, so if either there is already a 'List of notable xyz' or if you are going to create such a list by hiving off the content. Otherwise it should stay. Many thanks. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply-@Raktakamal:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Thanks for your(Fortuna's) intervention.Yeah, it would be prudent and very much necessary to check whether such a list (as in the case of Bengalis)is duplicated in the case of the other concerned article too.I requested User:Raktakamal to remove it, because I think he knew the reason of the removal of the section from Bengalis by me, as mentioned in his first comment.Will be personally checking it in a minute.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the how you edit through "Tag: Visual" edit like its mentioned in the article history as i'm new thats why I would like to copy from you.--Raktakamal (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:The tag is placed because Wikipedia has provided the editors with another option of editing-visual editor,a WYSIWYG interface, which seamlessly allows us to directly edit the article as we see it live on the screen and most imp. could be used without even knowing a bit of the WIKI MARKUP Language.You could visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and change the Editing mode from there, if it suits you.Wishing you a happy WIKIPEDIA journey.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:Please see WP:VisualEditor for more clarifications.Remember, you are still the only one responsible for the edits, even if done through Vis-Ed.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK: I have removed the "Notable section" area in the Kannada people articles. Will you pls check and let me know whether I've done it accurately or not. As I'm novice thats why i'm asking you. Also what about the Gujarati people article. Thanks--Raktakamal (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK:, what should i do with Gujarati people article shall i go ahead and removed "notable section" area.--Raktakamal (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:,Yeah,go ahead but please use the edit summary I used in my revision of Marathi people rather than the one in Bengalis.The latter edit summary is more appropriate than my prev. one!Cheers! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK:, I've removed that section just check the edit summery. Thanks--Raktakamal (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK:, The edit I made in Gujarati people article has been reverted by User:Ribena786 could pls check out and resolve the issue. Thanks--Raktakamal (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raktakamal:-I think the reversion is correct!There is no mention of the list of Gujarati People in the 'See also' Section as your edit summary seems to have tried to have mentioned.Also, the short section devoted there is quite well written,at least better than this list.I personally feel there is no need for the deletion of the section.Sorry,for misguiding you!Also,I think you lack proficiency in English.Thus I would advise you to be careful about your edit summaries.(You probably got the copying wrong while describing the edit summary at Gujarati people and all this made your edit look a case of Vandalism!).Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the advise. I would try to be careful.--Raktakamal (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]