User talk:Prolix
Welcome to my talk page :)
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A kitten for you!
You are welcome.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome again. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: You're doing good work! Debitpixie 💬 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well thanks again
. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well thanks again
MOS:DATE
- I'd suggest not to update "dmy dates" without making relevant changes in the article as in this case. Although it is in good faith, I've seen veteran editors getting warned and blocked for this. Reason being bulking up the history and increasing of ones own edit count without substantial editing. I hope you understand. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Fylindfotberserk, I figured that might have been an issue, thanks for informing me. I'll make sure not to make any such edits from here onwards. Prolix 💬 06:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- This one is absolutely fine. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, Ah good to hear, now I know what the threshold for change is. I don't think I've made too many of those erroneous edits that you pointed out. Will be extra vigilant henceforth. Thanks again for taking the time to inform me about this! Prolix 💬 06:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome.. those are not erroneous. Just that some people in higher positions have problems with this. I've seen a few users, one is in the top 10 users by edit counts, getting blocked, multiple times for these kind of edits. When I initially started using these scripts, I drew quite a lot of attention, with most asking me how it is done. Only one or two had problems, called it unnecessary, but since 99% of my edits were substantial, like the one you did at the Ladakh article above, they had nothing against me to complain about . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, I can definitely see why some people would have an issue with such edits. The script is honestly incredibly useful and makes it very easy to maintain consistency in date formats. I guess I just have to use it responsibly! Prolix 💬 08:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah...Just plain rivalry I believe. As for the script itself, it is awesome, but it is necessary to manually check what changes it did to the article. For example, I take care of these cleanup things in one article written in commonwealth English. Once when I updated the "dmy dates", it also updated the phrase "September 11 attacks" to "11 September attacks". I forgot to check it. Next day it got reverted since September 11 attack is the commonly used phrase. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, Yes I remember reading about those issues on the script's documentation page. I've made sure to check the edits properly since then. However it seems like most of the changes the script makes are to references and the dates within them. Makes it a lot easier to go through and check the edits. Prolix 💬 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely, that's why you'll find me using it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, Yes I remember reading about those issues on the script's documentation page. I've made sure to check the edits properly since then. However it seems like most of the changes the script makes are to references and the dates within them. Makes it a lot easier to go through and check the edits. Prolix 💬 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah...Just plain rivalry I believe. As for the script itself, it is awesome, but it is necessary to manually check what changes it did to the article. For example, I take care of these cleanup things in one article written in commonwealth English. Once when I updated the "dmy dates", it also updated the phrase "September 11 attacks" to "11 September attacks". I forgot to check it. Next day it got reverted since September 11 attack is the commonly used phrase. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, I can definitely see why some people would have an issue with such edits. The script is honestly incredibly useful and makes it very easy to maintain consistency in date formats. I guess I just have to use it responsibly! Prolix 💬 08:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome.. those are not erroneous. Just that some people in higher positions have problems with this. I've seen a few users, one is in the top 10 users by edit counts, getting blocked, multiple times for these kind of edits. When I initially started using these scripts, I drew quite a lot of attention, with most asking me how it is done. Only one or two had problems, called it unnecessary, but since 99% of my edits were substantial, like the one you did at the Ladakh article above, they had nothing against me to complain about
- Fylindfotberserk, Ah good to hear, now I know what the threshold for change is. I don't think I've made too many of those erroneous edits that you pointed out. Will be extra vigilant henceforth. Thanks again for taking the time to inform me about this! Prolix 💬 06:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Nestlé India has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
MapleSoy (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)- @MapleSoy: Thanks for informing me! Debitpixie 💬 08:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Source
Why are you reverting me? That thing never had a source. Please dont teach me about WP:RS. Human (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @A Simple Human: It doesn't matter whether or not it had a source, if you're adding new information cite your sources. If you think there is no reliable source for the information then add a citation needed tag or remove the information. Debitpixie 💬 11:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Unconstructive
You removed my edits as nonconstructive in the InfoSys Article. I find the "Initial Public Offer" (should be offering) and "through the ADR route" (view the history to see English that flows) so jarring to the ear I can barely look at the article.
I see you moved some other text around. Please consider revising that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.81.188 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'll fix it at your request. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Debitpixie 💬 08:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The No Spam Barnstar |
| For reverting vandalism and spamming at Indian company related articles ~ Amkgp 💬 09:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:Airtel logo (1994-2002).svg
.svg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Airtel logo (1994-2002).svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg
Hi Debitpixie. Can you clarify why you made this edit to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg? That edit essentially changed a public domain licensed file to a non-free file, which caused a bot to start removing the file from various pages a few days later as a WP:NFCCP violation. By replacing the {{information}} template with a non-free use rationale, you basically changed a public domain licensed file to a non-free licensed one. Did you just do this by mistake or did you do it for a specific reason? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I uploaded a better version of the logo which I extracted from the organization's annual report using inkscape. This provided a perfect vector file unlike the previous version which had embedded raster images. Since I didn't alter the logo in any way and directly uploaded it as is, I included a non-free use rationale as per WP:FU. If I made a mistake here kindly let me know so I can help fix it at the earliest. Thanks Debitpixie 💬 18:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that. While it's true that non-free files need a non-free use rationale for each use, this file wasn't and still isn't licensed as non-free; it's licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and, thus, isn't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. it's not required to have a non-free use rationale for any of its uses). When you replaced the "Information" template with a non-free use rationale, you created a "conflict" in which a public domain license had a non-free use rationale, which in turn caused a bot that for check non-free files missing rationales to remove this file from various pages where it was probably OK to use. What I'm trying to figure out is why you did this. If it was just done by accident, then that's OK and your the changes you made can be fixed. If it was done for a specific reason (i.e. you saw that the file was licensed as public domain, but thought it should be licensed as non-free content instead), then that can be sorted out too though it probably would require some discussion.For future reference, if you find a file that is licensed as public domain that you think should be non-free instead, it might be better to ask about it at WP:MCQ first if you're not 100% sure. If the file is really a non-free file which has been incorrectly licensed as free or public domain, it will not only need to have a non-free use rationale for each use, but also a non-free copyright license added to its page. In addition, if you convert a file that's being used on lots of pages (you can determine this by checking the "File usage" section on the file's page) from freely licensed/public domain to non-free content, you should assess each use to determine whether it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because in some cases it may not. A non-free file requires a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use; so, if the file's is appropriately being used on more one page, the file will need to have a rationale added for each of those uses. This file was being used on 25 pages before you updated it, but now it's only being used on one. The file was removed by a bot from those other pages because it was missing non-free use rationales for them. The bot only checks whether a file has the required non-free use rationale for the page; it doesn't check whether the file's license is correct or whether a particular non-free use is policy compliant. Since the bot only found a non-free use rationale for Airtel (which was the one you added), the bot only kept the file being used on that page. I see you've gone and uploaded yet a newer version of the logo as File:Airtel logo.svg and this one you have licensed as non-free content. How is that version different from File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg? It looks pretty much the same to me, which means it might not need to be licensed as non-free content. Is there a specific reason why you uploaded the file as non-free or did you just think that all logo files need to be licensed as non-free? I'm not saying what you did is necessarily wrong; I'm just trying to understand why. Wikipedia doesn't need two non-free files which are essentially the same per WP:NFCC#3, and it doesn't need any non-free files if a free equivalent public domain file can be found to be used instead (see WP:FREER).Finally, if you're going to be uploading or updating non-free files which are in svg format, you probably should take a look at WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions for reference. Vector versions which have been officially released by their copyright holders are probably OK to upload/update, but vector versions converted to svg from other file formats probably should be avoided since it's not clear whether they're allowed per WP:NFCC#3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: As per my understanding the licensing of a file on Wikipedia depends upon the version of the file. Since I uploaded a new version extracted from the annual report I added a non-free use rationale. If this is not how its done, feel free to remove the non-free rationale that I added.I'll keep your advice in mind, the next time I come across a public domain file I'll be extra careful before I make any sweeping changes that could affect multiple pages. It seems my adding a non-free rationale on that logo's page stemmed from an incomplete understanding of how file licensing works on Wikipedia. For this I apologize, it was not my intention to cause widespread removals of the logo on multiple pages. I merely believed that all logos are by default non-free content since all logo's are copyrighted.Regarding File:Airtel logo.svg, I uploaded a new version of the file since the previous version was a poorly done SVG. The logo is a different version of File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg, both of which do not have an equivalent free version. I licensed it as non-free since I was under the impression that all logos must be non-free content by default. I now realize that this is not necessarily true.Once again, I thank you for bringing all of this to my notice and helping me realize where I went wrong. If there's anything I can do to help, kindly let me know. Debitpixie 💬 07:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The licensing of a file depends upon the version of the file in the sense that one version may be considered to be protected by copyright whereas another might not because one is more complex than other and is above the threshold of originality for the country of origin of that file. All logos don't necessarily need to be non-free by default and there are many logo files uploaded to Commons as c:Template:PD-logo. Since Commons hosts files for global use (i.e. Commons files can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects), Commons licensing policy requires that a file be both "PD-logo" in the United States and in its country of origin in order to keep the file; Commons doesn't accept any fair use files per c:COM:FAIR so in that sense it's all or nothing when it comes to PD status. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, only host local files (i.e. English Wikiepdia files can only be used by English Wikipedia); so, if a file is considered to be "PD-logo" in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States, but not "PD-logo" in its country of origin (which would be c:COM:TOO India), then sometimes the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is used and the file is treated locally as "PD-logo". Such files shouldn't be moved to Commons, but they also are not considered to be non-free content. What I meant by the two versions being the same is that all the possible copyrightable elements are the same; they are just arranged a bit differently and perhaps are different sizes and shades of red (things which are not considered copyrightable by default). So, if these elements are considered to be too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law, which is why the older version was licensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly", then the newer version of the logo is also not eligible for copyright protection regardless of the source of the file.Logos originating in India are sometimes hard to figure out because India used to be part of the British empire and some aspects of its copyright laws are still based on British copyright laws (which can be quite restrictive per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom when it comes to the threshold of originality); India, however, has been changing over time and newer laws reflect the less restrictive US approach towards threshold of originality.When this file was uploaded back in 2010, it was uploaded under a non-free license; someone later on change that license to "PD-ineligible-USonly" in 2017 because they felt fairly certain it was too simple for copyright protection in at least the US. What you did was to essentially change the file back to non-free; that's OK if you think it's too complex to be PD even in the US. So, you didn't really do anything wrong per se; it's just that what you did had a ripple effect that's hard to sometimes see if you're not too familiar with file licensing. All of this will be sorted out; I just wanted to know if you intentionally "converted" the file back to non-free because you thought it was too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection even in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I've definitely seen some logos of Indian companies on Wikimedia Commons but until now I've never really understood it. The 'threshold of originality' concept definitely makes a lot of sense and puts it all into perspective. File:Indian Oil Logo.svg and File:Tata Motors Logo.svg for example are in the public domain. The 'threshold of originality' concept is quite clear in the case of Tata Motors' logo which is just text in different fonts.I definitely agree with you that File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg and File:Airtel logo.svg are quite simplistic and similar in their essence, and may not meet the threshold of originality as you pointed out. If that is the case, can these be exported to Wikimedia Commons? That would certainly solve any issues this created, all that would be left would be to re-add the logo in the pages it was removed from. Also just to clarify, I did not change it to non-free because I thought it was too complex, it was just an incomplete understanding of copyright guidelines that led to my error.I definitely have learnt a lot thanks to you and I doubt I'll be making such a mistake ever again. I really appreciate you taking out the time to explain the whole situation to me. Thanks and have a nice day! Debitpixie 💬 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: First, I apologize for not having read through all of the discussion. I just wanted add to my reasoning for changing to PD-USonly. Non-free logos have a very short lifespan in case everything isn't perfect, and this license is a perfectly reasonable way to avoid having it deleted immediately. I just want to make it clear that while I still believe that the NFCC enforcement is overzealous (probable trauma from the days when a cease-and-desist would mean the end of Wikipedia), I no longer change existing licenses to PD-USonly, just my own new uploads when I'm not sure of the specific country's copyright laws. --Ben Stone 19:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- My thinking is that logo is certainly OK as a non-free logo, but that it's probably just as OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} given that the US's TOO is quite low and given some of the examples shown in c:COM:TOO United States. The file needs to be "PD-logo" in both the US and India, however, for it to OK to upload to Commons, and it's the India part that's not clear. I've added some {{Please see}} templates to WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC to see if others might want to weigh in on this, but I (once again) think "PD-ineligible-USonly" is OK. Licensing the file as non-free might seem like the best thing to do because it's the safest thing to do, but it also places the most restrictions on the file's use. As I mentioned above, File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg was being used on quite a number of different pages, including some user pages. Since non-free content cannot be used outside of the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, the file definitely cannot be used on user pages; the use in other articles, however, might be OK but each use will need to be assessed to make sure it complies with WP:NFCCP. In addition, there's no real need for two practically identical versions of the same logo if the file needs to be licensed as non-free. So, if both versions of the logo need to be treated as non-free, then it would've probably been OK to upload the newer version simply as an updated version of the former version instead of as separate file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: First, I apologize for not having read through all of the discussion. I just wanted add to my reasoning for changing to PD-USonly. Non-free logos have a very short lifespan in case everything isn't perfect, and this license is a perfectly reasonable way to avoid having it deleted immediately. I just want to make it clear that while I still believe that the NFCC enforcement is overzealous (probable trauma from the days when a cease-and-desist would mean the end of Wikipedia), I no longer change existing licenses to PD-USonly, just my own new uploads when I'm not sure of the specific country's copyright laws. --Ben Stone 19:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I've definitely seen some logos of Indian companies on Wikimedia Commons but until now I've never really understood it. The 'threshold of originality' concept definitely makes a lot of sense and puts it all into perspective. File:Indian Oil Logo.svg and File:Tata Motors Logo.svg for example are in the public domain. The 'threshold of originality' concept is quite clear in the case of Tata Motors' logo which is just text in different fonts.I definitely agree with you that File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg and File:Airtel logo.svg are quite simplistic and similar in their essence, and may not meet the threshold of originality as you pointed out. If that is the case, can these be exported to Wikimedia Commons? That would certainly solve any issues this created, all that would be left would be to re-add the logo in the pages it was removed from. Also just to clarify, I did not change it to non-free because I thought it was too complex, it was just an incomplete understanding of copyright guidelines that led to my error.I definitely have learnt a lot thanks to you and I doubt I'll be making such a mistake ever again. I really appreciate you taking out the time to explain the whole situation to me. Thanks and have a nice day! Debitpixie 💬 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The licensing of a file depends upon the version of the file in the sense that one version may be considered to be protected by copyright whereas another might not because one is more complex than other and is above the threshold of originality for the country of origin of that file. All logos don't necessarily need to be non-free by default and there are many logo files uploaded to Commons as c:Template:PD-logo. Since Commons hosts files for global use (i.e. Commons files can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects), Commons licensing policy requires that a file be both "PD-logo" in the United States and in its country of origin in order to keep the file; Commons doesn't accept any fair use files per c:COM:FAIR so in that sense it's all or nothing when it comes to PD status. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, only host local files (i.e. English Wikiepdia files can only be used by English Wikipedia); so, if a file is considered to be "PD-logo" in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States, but not "PD-logo" in its country of origin (which would be c:COM:TOO India), then sometimes the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is used and the file is treated locally as "PD-logo". Such files shouldn't be moved to Commons, but they also are not considered to be non-free content. What I meant by the two versions being the same is that all the possible copyrightable elements are the same; they are just arranged a bit differently and perhaps are different sizes and shades of red (things which are not considered copyrightable by default). So, if these elements are considered to be too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law, which is why the older version was licensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly", then the newer version of the logo is also not eligible for copyright protection regardless of the source of the file.Logos originating in India are sometimes hard to figure out because India used to be part of the British empire and some aspects of its copyright laws are still based on British copyright laws (which can be quite restrictive per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom when it comes to the threshold of originality); India, however, has been changing over time and newer laws reflect the less restrictive US approach towards threshold of originality.When this file was uploaded back in 2010, it was uploaded under a non-free license; someone later on change that license to "PD-ineligible-USonly" in 2017 because they felt fairly certain it was too simple for copyright protection in at least the US. What you did was to essentially change the file back to non-free; that's OK if you think it's too complex to be PD even in the US. So, you didn't really do anything wrong per se; it's just that what you did had a ripple effect that's hard to sometimes see if you're not too familiar with file licensing. All of this will be sorted out; I just wanted to know if you intentionally "converted" the file back to non-free because you thought it was too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection even in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: As per my understanding the licensing of a file on Wikipedia depends upon the version of the file. Since I uploaded a new version extracted from the annual report I added a non-free use rationale. If this is not how its done, feel free to remove the non-free rationale that I added.I'll keep your advice in mind, the next time I come across a public domain file I'll be extra careful before I make any sweeping changes that could affect multiple pages. It seems my adding a non-free rationale on that logo's page stemmed from an incomplete understanding of how file licensing works on Wikipedia. For this I apologize, it was not my intention to cause widespread removals of the logo on multiple pages. I merely believed that all logos are by default non-free content since all logo's are copyrighted.Regarding File:Airtel logo.svg, I uploaded a new version of the file since the previous version was a poorly done SVG. The logo is a different version of File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg, both of which do not have an equivalent free version. I licensed it as non-free since I was under the impression that all logos must be non-free content by default. I now realize that this is not necessarily true.Once again, I thank you for bringing all of this to my notice and helping me realize where I went wrong. If there's anything I can do to help, kindly let me know. Debitpixie 💬 07:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that. While it's true that non-free files need a non-free use rationale for each use, this file wasn't and still isn't licensed as non-free; it's licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and, thus, isn't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. it's not required to have a non-free use rationale for any of its uses). When you replaced the "Information" template with a non-free use rationale, you created a "conflict" in which a public domain license had a non-free use rationale, which in turn caused a bot that for check non-free files missing rationales to remove this file from various pages where it was probably OK to use. What I'm trying to figure out is why you did this. If it was just done by accident, then that's OK and your the changes you made can be fixed. If it was done for a specific reason (i.e. you saw that the file was licensed as public domain, but thought it should be licensed as non-free content instead), then that can be sorted out too though it probably would require some discussion.For future reference, if you find a file that is licensed as public domain that you think should be non-free instead, it might be better to ask about it at WP:MCQ first if you're not 100% sure. If the file is really a non-free file which has been incorrectly licensed as free or public domain, it will not only need to have a non-free use rationale for each use, but also a non-free copyright license added to its page. In addition, if you convert a file that's being used on lots of pages (you can determine this by checking the "File usage" section on the file's page) from freely licensed/public domain to non-free content, you should assess each use to determine whether it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because in some cases it may not. A non-free file requires a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use; so, if the file's is appropriately being used on more one page, the file will need to have a rationale added for each of those uses. This file was being used on 25 pages before you updated it, but now it's only being used on one. The file was removed by a bot from those other pages because it was missing non-free use rationales for them. The bot only checks whether a file has the required non-free use rationale for the page; it doesn't check whether the file's license is correct or whether a particular non-free use is policy compliant. Since the bot only found a non-free use rationale for Airtel (which was the one you added), the bot only kept the file being used on that page. I see you've gone and uploaded yet a newer version of the logo as File:Airtel logo.svg and this one you have licensed as non-free content. How is that version different from File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg? It looks pretty much the same to me, which means it might not need to be licensed as non-free content. Is there a specific reason why you uploaded the file as non-free or did you just think that all logo files need to be licensed as non-free? I'm not saying what you did is necessarily wrong; I'm just trying to understand why. Wikipedia doesn't need two non-free files which are essentially the same per WP:NFCC#3, and it doesn't need any non-free files if a free equivalent public domain file can be found to be used instead (see WP:FREER).Finally, if you're going to be uploading or updating non-free files which are in svg format, you probably should take a look at WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions for reference. Vector versions which have been officially released by their copyright holders are probably OK to upload/update, but vector versions converted to svg from other file formats probably should be avoided since it's not clear whether they're allowed per WP:NFCC#3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Colours on languages section of Indian States
Sorry, the vague descriptions I gave for changing those colours was not sufficient. I was trying to give some sense of relatedness between the languages: for example on the Chhattisgarh article I tried to give warmer colours to the Indo-Aryan languages and cooler ones for the Dravidian languages. So for languages that were more related I chose similar colours, but for those that weren't I chose very different ones. However I can see why people would not find it productive. C1MM (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @C1MM: While I do appreciate your intentions to maintain uniformity across articles, your colour choices made it very hard to differentiate the languages in the chart. Besides people rarely compare the languages across different articles so ease of interpretation takes precedence over uniformity here. If you can tailor your edits in such a way that the colours are carefully chosen and appropriate talk page consensus is gathered, I feel it could be a very useful contribution. Debitpixie 💬 18:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Revert edit
I edited on Haryana Indian state.i used map of Haryana in demographic information. In literacy subtitle I used Haryana literacy map.then why you reverted my edits again and again. Please reply me as soon as possible.सीमा1 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @सीमा1: Hi, your edits on Haryana were definitely in good faith but I chose to revert them since addition of images in important articles such as those of Indian states usually requires consensus among editors. To seek consensus kindly go to the talk page and create a new section regarding the edits you propose. Prolix 💬 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Your bot Wikipedia:RedWarn may be a little overactive in it's beta state. List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units was edited in good faith in order to not just add value for the readers with references, but also to decrease the amount of screen real-estate wasted by unused or under-used table columns/cells. These changes may seem difficult to appreciate given the sheer density of data on the page in question, but it is believed that they hold sufficient merit to justify you reinsating them. 220.240.158.43 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if they were in good faith, your edits were mostly unsourced and would've been reverted anyways. I suggest you add more citations to your edits henceforth. Prolix 💬 03:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Air India Kolkata London Flight
I know that Kolkata-London is under Vande Bharat Mission but if you see the Heathrow Page then you will find Vistara and Air India from Kochi and Amritsar which are also under Vande Bharat. In Amritsar Airport’s Page you can find London Flight. Then what is the problem in adding it in Kolkata Airport Page? Also it can be booked by anyone who have a UK Visa valid for more than 6 months...If you agree with me please add it in the airport’s page NilInfinite (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi NilInfinite, flights that are not scheduled commercial services should not be added to Wikipedia articles about airports. The repatriation flights listed on the Heathrow article as well as individual airline articles only exist due to editorial oversight. I will try and remove them as and when possible, thanks for informing me. Prolix 💬 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
They can be booked by anyone, they will operated every week in daily manner then what is the problem.......Also readers can get help by seeing the article so that they can book a flight on that.....Please let it be as it is there.....Please it is my request NilInfinite (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- NilInfinite, I understand your request but this is not my decision. You can go to the talk page of the respective articles and start a new topic regarding the issue. Prolix 💬 10:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Then we should remove London from Vistara’s Destination Page NilInfinite (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Prolix! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
DS Alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Indian nationalism
Can you describe how this edit was unexplained since you have claimed? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Aman.kumar.goel, while checking the edit history I gave your edits a rather cursory glance which initially looked to me like poorly explained content removal. It was only when you reverted my edit that I took a more detailed look at the section you removed which did indeed have very little to do with the article. I apologize for my haste and thank you for attempting to clarify here. Have a good day Prolix 💬 03:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
manipur demographic chart
Sir i wanna know the reason of my edits being revert . I just made it look clear and easy to read . I dont think this task need any sources .is making clear this kind of article section prohibited or is it. Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Puipuianunuibuangpuia1, your edits seem to be in good faith but adding unnecessary spaces to an article is not constructive. Your other edits are also problematic since almost all of them seem to be unsourced in whole or in part. If you have issues with an article and are unsure as to how they should be fixed, bring the issues up on the respective talk page. Prolix 💬 17:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
But do wikipedia allow me to make it look clear . I am tryna do edits that need as less source criteria and based on other related page s as i m still figuring where to get how to put sources . If u can link me some page that tells that i would be gratefull. Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)