User talk:Huhshyeh

Hello, Huhshyeh, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field . Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Popular Front of India. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WBRSin (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let allegation take a different paragraph Quite frankly, I don't think this much details should be covered on the very main page.

Suggest the allegations since they are yet to be proved, need to be moved to the "Allegations" title already on the page.

Will wait other contributor's opinon Huhshyeh (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Mirren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Audience (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not welcome your blind rant on my talk page. Please open a new section at the end of the talk page next time and leave your signature. And do not go on accusing please discuss about specific edits, I had made 85 small edits with a proper summary over a span of a week. Point out the edit you disagree with and improve it -- I have not obstructed you. Jyoti (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been previously warned for POV pushing on the same page and your recent Wikipedia interest is limited to that article. I would request you to assume good faith and discuss about the content rather than engage in personal attacks on me. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jyoti Pls check the user WBRSin page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WBRSin. He is already accused of vandalism, false information & disambiguation. And you may find him/her no longer active. So clearly, I wont be taking his/her word in the POV accusation if I were you.

Indented your reply. Please stay away from my talk page. You are not having any constructve discussion but only using abusive language and making personal attacks -- you are not welcome! Jyoti (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jyoti.mickey. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti.mickey, WP need people to collaborate to bring the facts, not collaborate to make 85 changes on same page which already has enough "Talk". So pls refrain from placing me on the same page and making me un"civil" Huhshyeh (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh[reply]

You are welcome to make discussions/edits! Do not make personal attacks on my Talk page. Jyoti (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huhshyeh, I have done a general cleanup of the article: Spelling/grammar correction, Fixing style/layout errors, Cleanup-bare URLs, and adding appropriate tags. I have refrained from adding/removing references. I have added content at few places from the already cited reference. If you find a mistake please go ahead and make corrective edit. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Jyoti. Even the credibility of ToI is being tagged.

Ah, must have happened by mistake! Corrected it now. Thank you for pointing out! Please go ahead and make corrective edit immediately when you notice such obvious mistake. :-) Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could see a clear mislead on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=707375429 : attach turned to murder Huhshyeh (talk)

Hi, A large volume of high handed biasing and inclusion of baseless charges, trivial and false accusations is happening in Popular Front of India page. please have a look. Wasif (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No an uncommon thing Wasif. There is always biased reporting on that page. Huhshyeh (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a reason for this thisrevert? I had provided two academic source of which one is a defense journal. Your edit summary only says "Discrediting source P C Katoch and link" -- I have undone the edit. There were large disruptive edit by another user who (effectively not literally) imposed a much earlier revision of the article ignoring the discussion on the talk page. I have retained his POV tag though. Jyoti (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti PC Katoch is no historian. The observations are his own; the general is now pro-right wing - already joined the BJP, the political party of the militant RSS. The grounds for discrediting source is quite clear. If you want WP article to be neutral, provide sources and info. from both sides. Huhshyeh (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that we can refer only historian. The content referenced from his work from his book and the defense journal is not a matter of history either. What is the other side you are talking about? If you find that some thing more needs to be added please do so (with reliable reference) but you may not discredit the references at your will, they are reliable source. Jyoti (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's no historian, it's a personal opinion. Personal opinions of person already "right" inclined towards a party (BJP) known for it's anti-minority bais, is hence a biased source. Hence,Jyoti , in all certainty, it's not reliable as per WP. Huhshyeh (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have weighed in a lot of personal opinion each time. That aside, I disagree with you. A journal reference and a book reference are reliable source IMHO. Besides the author is a retired defense personal of highest reputation. And it is likely he has good understanding of the subject concerned here. Please take it to

WP:RSN and find consensus there if you want it to be not treated as RS. Jyoti (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My edits in WP is always backed up by references. The references online doesn't say that the PFI has ISI links. So, apart for the right-wing bias of the Ret. General, the actual content doesn't support your edit. So, Jyoti, I will have no option that to revert the paragraph - I'll wait for your quick response, however, as a matter of good faith, if you really want to give the WP readers the most neutral and the most widest of views. Huhshyeh (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy your response on article talk page and respond there. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of

Jyoti, atleast I am not accused of being communal like yourself. As for Sock puppetry, the Wiki IT admin would have a fair knowledge of my IP : so they know that I'm clean. Am removing this rubbish from my page. Huhshyeh (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.72.10.168.89 (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, user at 72.10.168.89...I've asked the Admins to take note of the mass deletion / NPOVs on this page. Hope maximum neutrality is ensured. Huhshyeh (talk)Huhshyeh

Edit, but simply don't revert, and don't falsify info Huhshyeh (talk)

Human3015simply doesn't read, simply don't revert - there is no PFI mentioned in the news sources. Hence section "Murder of VishalKumar" removed Huhshyeh (talk)

Alias Irrigator seems to have conveniently left out the media being discreditted by the very source in his revert "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_Front_of_India&oldid=668701237". @WP Admin, please note alias User:Irrigator and User:Human3015 for NPOV, selective omissions and unsupported reverts

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User, Discussion involving you is started at ANI here. You can participate there.--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.--74.120.221.236 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Popular Front of India. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article
  dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards
  .
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's
  Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  .

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Human3015 knock knock • 18:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a re-read on the previous section "NPOV and repeated unwarranted reverts". Also a "Reverts" section on the talk had already been made to reach a consensus.User:Human3015 I didn't see any mention of your recent revert in that. Pls do corrective action from within before makin accusation -thanks Huhshyeh (talk)

The reason for the edit was already given the first time itself. However, User:Human3015 doesn't seem to read. Kindly re-read and stop this NPOV. Huhshyeh (talk) Moreover, check the history of the section creation once more.Huhshyeh (talk)

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:NeilN, shall adhere to the three-revert rule. Appreciate the reminder. I've already requested semi-protection fo this page so that unreasoned revert/edit and IP blank out of the past are not repeated. I had infact started a section "Reverts" in the talk page so that all editor can reach a consensus on the same; I don't see editors like Human3015 making a discussion while reverting . Am in a quest to maintain balance and neutrality, your assistance in required for the same. Happy editing Huhshyeh (talk)

Hello Huhshyeh,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rberchie (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Be carefull whom you consider to be an enemy: "So in no way, you can revert this, Kautilya3, unless ofcourse you are a "bhakt" itself, promoting the fascist thrice banned organisation, the RSS." This way you'll keep very few friends here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#On @Kautilya3 edits Hi Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3 certain edit patterns indicates vandalism, and hence my edit...Do excuse if the tone needed to reduced - he simply blanks out 2 Quotes both from Kumar and Gandhi. Additionally, Kumar re-instates already referenced content in the same RSS article. I don't feel such editor are to be befriended IMHO. Like to know your opinion in this context, Joshua Huhshyeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huhshyeh. I don't think Kautilya3 is vandalizing. Take a better look at his edits, and don't let your edits be led by your agitation. I know India is highly politicised, but not every revert is an attack. Take care, and best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Joshua, will have a revised look at his reverts.

@

WP:PRIMARY. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kautilya3:, and in the 70 years, the RSS has been banned thrice, for complextities including killing the M.K.Gandhi, the Father of the Indian nation, so forgive me for being rationally logic here with both facts and translated actions Huhshyeh (talk)

Yet, each ban was lifted after a short duration, and, in the long run, it didn't matter. It is much more important to focus on what the RSS stands for and how it acts rather than make a big deal of these symbolic events. (I am sorry, I have now forgotten what the original issue was about.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how many organisations in India have that unique thrice-ban? Kindly refer to the mass deletions to recall the topic of discussion - the least a WP editor should recall that IMHO Huhshyeh (talk)

Ok, it looks like you are still complaining about this revert [1]. The edit summary of my revert says Kanhaiya Kumar's speeches are not a reliable source, which you have been conveniently ignoring in all your complaints. Do you understand why Kanhaiya Kumar is not

reliable source? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Kautilya3 seem to conveniently ignore the facts in the Same page, merely recemented by Kanhaiya Kumar, with whom the anti-fascist wave has taken force in India, a "game-changer" event. It's bare logic. Also Rahul Gandhi's comments were simply blanked out!? If the WP editor choose NOT to be neutral, then it's your problem Mr.Kautilya. Anyways, I have done the decency of trying the put the matter to proper sense and logic before the revert. Other edits from the same WP editor does show the colour of the right wing, which is clearly not the right approach here. My time simply wasted, next time I wont be going for such an exercise not worthwhile. Joshua Jonathan I feel it's time to have things are re-examined w.r.t Kautilya3 Huhshyeh

Hello, Huhshyeh. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article UAE Dress Code has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable paragraph information based on twitter. Does not need a stand alone separate article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the