User talk:RogerYg

Hello, RogerYg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Thanks, I have over 1000 edits now. RogerYg (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your reply now and got confused for a while, totally forgetting that it was me who welcomed you a few months ago. Happy editing! Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand as I replied after few months (when I got to 1000 edits). RogerYg (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We do not collapse sections randomly unless there is a strong reason. Read more at

Okay, thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerYg I am working on 1) Draft:Ramalinga Vilasam palace 2) User:Bookku/Indian sceptre.

If you have very long term patience for all Wikipedia policies, reliable source and book research, article expansion by writing in your own words and if above mentioned drafts interest you then you can join them updating. Bookku (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to use my research on Sengol to add some relevant summarized content on Indian Sceptre page RogerYg (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Bookku (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Bookku (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not to say you have broken any rule, but this is a friendly advance intimation to be aware of ".. editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. .. Violations of this rule often attract blocks.." more info @

WP:DR. Bookku (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I avoid reverts in general RogerYg (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind summarizing or fixing your comment on the RfC? The long block of text break the formatting for the next comment. Much of what you wrote is from the previous discussion which can be viewed as per the RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nemov, Okay, I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, could you clarify the Rfc topic with some specifics, such Whether Agreeing to keep the language NPOV , such as Some of Vivek's statements may be considered Climate change denial by some fact checkers, avoiding strong "defaming" label as "Climate change denier". RogerYg (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate topic and I suspect that will be clarified by other comments. The section is about policies and opinions of Vivek. There's no need to get into the weeds about what some people think about his opinions in a biography of living person. Nemov (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the current Rfc topic will get lots of Yes, as many news articles have said that Vivek's comments are about Climate denial, so the Rfc should be whether to use Balanced Neutral language or have put strong CLimate denial opening or closing statements from News articles RogerYg (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how the RfC goes so be it. I didn't create it with a single objective in mind. The previous discussion was going on and on and this is a reasonable way to find a solution. Nemov (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RogerYg! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hardeep Singh Nijjar several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Re [1]. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQuakr (talk), I am regularly involved in TALK page discussions on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page based on WP policies, since that page was created, and trying to make the page WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I am aware of edit warring policy and mostly avoid reverts, instead I focus on developing balanced & agreeable neutral language. Also, restoring the previous Consensus based on TALK page discussion is generally not considered edit warring. THe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date. Meanwhile, I am involved in improving some parts on Indian allegations and pointing out Unsourced material as per WP:RS. But, I appreciate your point and will try to have better dispute resolution going forward.RogerYg (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for either formulation of the first sentence. It is the subject of active discussion on the talk page. Claiming "consensus" where none exists is poor form. But to be clear, "restoring the previous consensus" absolutely is still edit warring. The exemptions at

WP:3RRNO are intentionally very narrow. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note tHe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date. RogerYg (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be called edit warring because that is what it is, you enforcing your preferred version. Multiple other editors have expressed agreement with the inclusion on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is under Discussion on TALK page, and we can raise RFC for the same if needed RogerYg (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I appreciate your point and I generally avoid "restoring the previous consensus" if the edior is active on the page, I agree that we need to try to find agreeable language and avoid edit warring. RogerYg (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been

]

Dear Ghost of Dan Gurney, Well, I appreciate your note on Canvassing and I respect Consensus building as per WP:CON and regularly engage in constructive discussions on TALK pages to develop WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I have only informed 2 or 3 engaged editors about Rfc as friendly notices. I assume your message is also in good faith, but I hope you know that it's against Wikpedia policies to intimidate another Wiki editor, as it can be a violation as per Wikipedia:WikiBullying policies.

I assume good faith as of now. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAF

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hindu American Foundation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism. HaeB (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaeB, I appreciate your concern on WP:NPOV, but we also have to take note of WP:RS, WP:Priority among others. I have tried to explain each edit, though I am happy to explain again, as needed. I have tried to give priority to Well cited content over Opinion as per WP:RS, while also including balanced view as per WP:NPOV. About the example, One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism.. As per WP:LAYOUT the lead can have broader overview and specific details can go in the body. Following that guideline, I have replaced it more broad language: opposing any legislation that unfairly targets the ''Hindu community''., which is also cited in a WP:RS source that I was about to add. I will try to give more details on edits and also we can discuss the same on the TALK page of HAF.

I appreciate your suggestions, and hope we can edit with consensus and avoid any edit warring. Thanks again RogerYg (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look on this

Have a look on this

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article. 103.251.217.233 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Contentious topics alert - BLP & American politics

You've recently made edits about post-1992 politics of the United States and

living or recently deceased people. Just letting you know that these two topics are designated as contentious topics. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the alert. I sincerely follow WP policies citing High quality WP:RS sources, using WP:NPOV neutral language, and avoid any Edit-warring or Reverts. I provide WP policy and reasons for any contentious update.RogerYg (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of said policies is incorrect and consequently your edits to the Vivek Ramaswamy article have been undone. Note that

WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks for the update. I agree with your points and suggestions on WP:DUE. RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm Grabup. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Grabup (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grabup, I think this message is more appropriate for new editors. I already have over 1500 edits and have also created several new Wikipedia articles, but I appreciate your kind suggestions, and probably I am relatively in-experienced with Movie articles. RogerYg (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]