User talk:Nirva20

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Ruth Ashton Taylor.

Nirva20 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nirva20,

Why did you move an article to Susan Shatter when the article subject is referred to as Susan Louise Shatter several times? You need to have a very good reason to move an article to a different page title and it's not just because you like a different title better. We go by how the sources identify a subject. Please leave an edit summary with every edit or page move that explains the policy based reason for your edit. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Nirva20 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent renaming of various articles

You recently renamed Elizabeth Parke Custis Law to Eliza Law, as well as also renaming the composer Loris Ohannes Chobanian to Loris Chobanian (along with multiple other articles). Both of the articles I mention above were renamed using WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE as justification. I think these two Wikipedia policies are being used in error and have opened a discussion on the Eliza Parke Custis Law talk page about that article's title change. Shearonink (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your post on Liz' User talk - you stated

"I stand by Chobanian change 100% but possibly Eliza Parke Law ([1])..."

I can see Chobanian staying in its present state but hat WIkidata Eliza Parke Law our mentioned is not the Elizabeth Parke Custis Law/Eliza Law mentioned above, that is Eliza Parke Custis Law Rogers(1797-1822). The 1797-1822 person was Martha Washington's great-granddaughter, the woman we have been discussing lived from 1776-1831 and was Martha Washington's granddaughter and the mother of Eliza Parke Custis Law Rogers.

In the past I have found that if all the names, especially of the women of this era and milieu but even of the men as well, are retained it is easier to keep similarly-named people from different generations (and even similarly named cousins in the same generation) straight.

I think the present Eliza Law article should be changed back to its original title but want to make sure you are ok with all that. I'll ask an admin to do the change, so they can get all the various WP links/redirects/etc. in order.

If you're not ok with it being possibly changed, let me know and we can continue the discussion on the article talk page. Shearonink (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that strongly, I won't object. Nirva20 (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hello, Nirva20,

I have some concerns over your editing. Although you have only been an editor for 3 weeks, you already have over 3,000 edits with this account which makes me think you are probably a returning editor. Whether or not you are evading a block on another account, I can't tell. But your behavior is not that of a brand new editor you seem to easily refer to policy that it takes many editors months or years to learn about.

But my concerns are about all of your page moves. It seems like you are just into shortening the page titles of biographies. You should not, say, drop the middle name or maiden name of an article title because it would make the title shorter. We go by the name of the subject in reliable sources and to know what the correct page title should be, you need to consult all of the sources. Obviously, the experts in this matter are the content creators who devoted their time to creating and developing these articles and it is hard for me to believe that so many of our article creators got the common names wrong that you can search out and "correct" dozens of biographies every single day. Many new editors get caught up with the fact that they can move pages and they start going a little crazy with the process. Please be sure that the articles you are moving to different titles are in keeping with the sourcing in the article or additional sources you have found and do not move articles to a different page title because you personally prefer it, that is not a valid reason.

I watch the Move log so I see all of your article page moves, which are many in just a few weeks, and I hope you slow down and really do research before deciding to alter the page titles of the articles on this project. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah she deleted my page and reduced my husband's page! 2603:8081:5200:A100:415C:B4DA:7412:391B (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I believe this is a reference by Elsa Salazar Cade, wife of William H. Cade, who is blaming me for the fact that her article was AFDed and, by consensus, reduced to a redirect. (I didn't even participate in that AFD, which was before I started editing Wikipedia.) I merely followed the instructions to finish the redirect if it remained undone (see the diff). Nirva20 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz -- not my fault (see [2]). Nirva20 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirva20, In these renamed pages, are you fixing all of the article links, or leaving them as redirects? I am concerned about this trend too. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PigeonChickenFish -- If you mean updating ledes, removing circular redirects, and tweaking the DEFAULTSORT, then yes. Otherwise, I am not sure I know what you mean. Nirva20 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through the day this editor was blocked as a sock, they continued making incorrect page moves, such as with Jonathan Plaut and Charles Herb. The amount of damage this sockpuppet has caused to the project cannot be understated. Curbon7 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up.

Hi,
I noticed the removal based off of the dead link, you mentioned OR, could I ask again, just for clarity scake, was it based off of it being original research, the source being dead, or new information from a new source? Thank you Geardona (talk to me?) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. To my mind, if the sole link supporting the claim is no longer valid it kind of becomes OR. I clarified in the subsequent edit summary. Yours, Nirva20 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link https://web.archive.org/web/20180702233240/http://www.dodlive.mil/2012/02/23/first-black-female-fighter-pilot-follows-childhood-dream/ Geardona (talk to me?) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, sorry try it now. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Good job on Shawna Kimbrell, thank you for all of your work! Geardona (talk to me?) 01:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia

Hey! I noticed you've been changing the attributions on some articles imported from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's great to see those getting some love. Can I recommend that instead of changing the attribution to external New Advent links, you go with the {{Catholic Encyclopedia|wstitle="Page Name"}} template? It automatically links to the wiki-hosted import (so it'll be stably available even if New Advent changes things up again), puts a nice formatted attribution on the page, and makes it easy to find Catholic Encyclopedia articles.— Moriwen (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moriwen -- OK. I finally got the hang of it. The problem was that the Wikipedia article name (often) didn't match the CE/New Advent article name. Sometimes minor spelling differences, sometimes not even the same name but a reference to something or someone else in which the subject was referenced. Nirva20 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little wiki word note.

Hello, small nitpick-y thing here:
rv - revert
rm - remove

Sorry! To bug you Geardona (talk to me?) 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do tend to use them interchangeably. I'll try to remember. Nirva20 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bit deal, just figured for clarity. (thanks for your work btw) Geardona (talk to me?) 00:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your comment, just fyi.

While I understand your frustrations, that way of phrasing them is not permitted per Wikipedia policy. Would you be willing to come back and rephrase? FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for the strike FortunateSons (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I tried again using more moderate language. Is it OK? Nirva20 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed the issue with the personal attack, thank you. I nevertheless disagree with your assessment of content and policy (and tbh, you will likely have limited success at best with your proposal), but it being unlikely to succeed and potentially off-topic is a lot better than it was before.

I appreciate you being receptive to criticism. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding consensus at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject can help the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is based on your personal analysis of the subject. This type of input can be counterproductive, because consensus on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and policy-based arguments. In the case of a page move, arguments should be based on what the subject is explicitly called in reliable sources, not what individual editors understand or determine it to be. Personal interpretation or analysis is generally given little to no weight when determining the results of the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, Nirva20,

No matter when I'm editing Wikipedia, you seem to be actively editing. Do you sleep? Just kidding. You just have made more edits in less than 2 months than some editors make over 10 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sleep too much according to some. I just woke up, actually. NYC (EST) time. Cheers. Nirva20 (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

nableezy - 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left that colloquy quite some time ago. Just tell 'em Elvis has left the building and is NOT coming back. Nirva20 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email

I need to contact lots of people as part of my reporting. I wouldn't take anything she says as seriously directed at you. I'm most interested in the people trying to scam her, but I'll listen to whatever she has to say. Just routine reporting. If you've got any tips, just let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the prompt reply.

Yours. Nirva20 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Jessie Kenney, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove deadlinks in citations

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Thaddeus C. Pound. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please restore the citations you removed. MarconiCheese (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do replace deadlinks with valid ones where possible. However, it is not always possible to do so as sometimes there aren't any replacements. I will try to be more conscientious about that. Nirva20 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hello, Nirva20,

I've noticed with some recent AFDs you have started that you only evaluated the sources that are currently present in an article. Please review WP:BEFORE and carry out a search for additional sources and also look at the entire page history before you nominate an article for deletion consideration. AFDs are really for articles that are unacceptable for main space and shouldn't be used for borderline cases where articles could be improved through editing. Also consider ATDs such a redirection or a merge that you can recommend in your deletion nomination. Unless there is truly inappropriate content, deletion should be a last resort, not the first option that is considered. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Province of Ancona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary accuracy and page moves

Hi. I noticed you've making several page moves with the same edit summary, Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE). You used this edit summary with the move from Mirza Riyaz Ul Effendi to Mirza Riyaz Ul Hassan Effendi even though it is now longer. Please make sure your edit summaries are accurate, especially if you're using the same tinned ones. I would also recommend going through the WP:RM if you feel a move may be controversial. For example, I reverted your page move at Frieda A. Murray, which you moved to Frieda Murray, as her pen name is the former. Curbon7 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The move option may be tinned but it is accurate. Nirva20 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave

Just wanted to note that Findagrave as an external link does have the occasional purpose of being a place to link for articles that do not have embedded grave photos. I noticed you were removing the links, en mass. For an article that has a grave photo already, it can be removed. It should (almost) never be used as a citation, but it existing as an external link for a user to review the gravesite is allowed according to the WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL policy. --Engineerchange (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do keep FAG when it has pictures of gravestones unavailable elsewhere, particularly when there is a discrepancy re date/year of birth or death. Nirva20 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tag

Just so you know, this article is not actually unreferenced. It contains a URL to a website plus a WP:General reference to a book. If you want to complain that there are no "little blue clicky numbers" even though sources are listed on the page, then the appropriate tag is {{no footnotes}}. If you do a lot of this, then you'll probably also want to know about {{third-party}}, which is the tag to use when there are sources on the page, but they're all to the subject's own website/writings.

These tags can be used together: {{no footnotes}} when the only source anywhere on the page is a website in ==External links==, and {{third-party}} because that website is an WP:ELOFFICIAL link to the subject's own website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Okay, thanks. But what about {{Onesource}} when there is just one source? Nirva20 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't use that if the one source is a good one, but yes, that can also be a useful tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kristin Kuhns Alexandre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mendham, New Jersey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Robert Lax

added links pointing to Elmhurst, New York and Olean

Betty Cole Dukert

added a link pointing to Bethesda

Beverlye Hyman Fead

added a link pointing to Montecito

Siad Barre

added a link pointing to Circa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clara Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ongar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alexander Stockton Cussons

added a link pointing to Natal, South Africa

Nguyễn Văn Trân

added a link pointing to Yên Phong

Vocabulario de la lengua tagala

added a link pointing to Tagalog

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]