Any help or queries ask me here. Use tildes (~~~~); software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
Wikipedia is a whole of knowledge in it , We hope for your faithful contributions.You can contact me for any help on here.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pagesSMasonGarrison13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even a constructive reply. Anyway, you are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from. You removed Punjabi surnames category from all the Punjabi surname pages. This reply "Great" and an advice followed by it is like attacking pages created to push your opinion. Very much against the community guidelines. If you cared to check enough rather than doing such attacks, there are tens of articles in the same category with more than 6 categories each. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. My reply was intended to encourage you to keep working in the area. Calling me encouragement non-constructive and then jumping to the conclusion that my attempts are reducing your overcategorization as an attack is just baffling. SMasonGarrison13:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I assumed good faith as you are a senior editor here and my previous reply was meant for an advice on the topic not bypassing it. I read the guidelines and there is no limit on categories as long as we don't repeat similar ones right?
That's why I replied -
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. meant to seek your advice here on "those" categories but you wrote,
"Great!" (I was asking about your edits and did not write anything for great as a reply with exclamation mark) followed by, "Please keep categorization guidelines in mind when you add categories to pages", tell me which part is encouraging. There is nothing to baffle about here, simply you were proving your point per WP:POINTY. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Great!" is supposed to be encouraging. The 2nd sentence is pointing out that you were applying the policy correctly. Your insults in response to my diffusing overcategorization is baffling. You were overcatergozitiong by adding pages to redudant categories. I was fixing it.SMasonGarrison2600:1700:944:9810:CD21:7539:4636:E0FE (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be simply not what it seemed to be considering your edits. On the other hand, using insults over replying on your edits is totally blowing it out of proportion and is baffling as there is no insults here. I did assume good faith and sought your advice as your a senior editor with clearly more experience. I wish to not engage in this conversation with repetitive out of context replies any further. It might be better than causing further misunderstandings. Thanks! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I strongly encourage you to reflect on your interpretation here. If you want people to assume that you are assuming good faith, don't start by "That is not even a constructive reply." and then immediably follow by "are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from". Like, if your intent was good faith, I encourage you to rethink your approach. Please just review how categorization works and how diffusion works. It's a really simple ask. SMasonGarrison00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
I saw you're editing the 2025 india-pak airstrikes page. I was earlier posting through my IP address without loging in and didn't know it was public.I am concerned about my safety. Can it be hidden please. Iamgood22 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Do not panic and continue using your account from now on. Do not show your relation or affiliation with that IP on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
I found this WP:OSFAQ. As per the WP:OSFAQ, enable email in your account and email to
oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org.
According to this, the Q. added below seems to apply in your case and mention it in your discussion with the team at mail. It is totally up to you.
Q: I don't have a Wikipedia account. My IP address was published on Wikipedia when I edited. Can you remove it? A: If you wish to conceal your IP, you should create an account. In some cases, suppression may still be considered, for example, if you are a new editor and did not realize your IP address would be publicly published. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being mentioned in a discussion regarding your disruptive, poorly sourced and biased edits to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article. Please feel free to participate in the discussion.
At first, I was writing full names but to avoid irrelevant discussion, I shortened them. I had no idea about Bulgaria to be BG (it should have been BU). I will replace that asap. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, understood — thank you for the clarification. I’ll move the discussion to the article’s talk page so others can contribute as well. Appreciate your guidance! Ck17840 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase is still not included in the third-party list. Please refer to the below The Washington Post thoroughly.
I noticed that The Washington Post recent article on Pakistan Airbase Damage also mentions PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase. Please go through the below article thoroughly.
During the conflict, a video showing a jet being targeted was shared by the official X handle of the Pakistani government and praised by Information Minister Attaullah Tarar. Fact-checks by Deutsche Welle later identified it as footage from the video game Arma 3. [ UK Defence Journal, Washington Examiner, DW ]
A video showing a jet being targeted went viral on social media during the conflict. According to the UK Defence Journal and the Washington Examiner, the footage was shared by the official X (Twitter) handle of the Government of Pakistan, with Information Minister Attaullah Tarar praising the military’s “timely and nerve-wracking response.” However, Deutsche Welle identified the video as gameplay from the video game Arma 3.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
Hi @HilssaMansen19: Why did you close this as Speedy Keep when it wasn't. The nomination was clearly withdrawn as a keep. It was miles from a Speedy Keep. It was opened for a full week. How can it be speedy. Can you change it, "Nomination withdrawn - Keep"? scope_creepTalk18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking all the discussions and closed it per withdrawal with unanimous voting. I might have missed the hour based difference, that counts, yes. I will change it, apologies for any inconvenience. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it as your mention was for it to be kept if it meets time based significance. It was covered by voters. The standard discussion timing was completed by a few hours. Thanks for notifying me. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chandhar airfiled: Happened to pass by this article. Relies on a single source and barely has any sources on the web as far as i have looked up. It also lacks the WP:N in my view. Kindly look into this. Thanks Banshee 007 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I have added a relevant tag for now. Per WP:NAIRPORTS, WP:BASIC is required. I checked it and some basic information is available. Thus, AfD might not be the right choice, you can help by expanding the sources. Notably, it was also attacked in retaliation by Indian armed forces in the war of 1971. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by this close. You have closed the AfD over a day early. It was re-opened for a relist and got only a new redirect !vote. You say There were doubts about notability of quotes from interviews, WP:IV, covers that. But the point is that IV says very clearly that those quotes are primary and cannot be used for notability. And that makes me wonder if you also missed my delete !vote in the discussion. Could you re-open urgently to allow the relist to run for a week? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I did check your vote which was delete and considered snowball clause here. It is being stretched for over 3 weeks now with no major argument which is agreed upon by others. Apart from votes, arguments including quotes the one you pointed at also mentions where and how it can be relevant.
If it is being argued upon, it depends upon the general consensus and perspective.
Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, it contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline with also focusing on reliability of the publisher. This was not even mentioned there. Whereas, arguments about sources being reliable have been added in the discussion.
This was a backlog and previous relisting comment by @Star Mississippi discussed closing this as a keep. They kept it open per a request made to them and wrote that they will check it after being active again. Still, if you believe it requires more time, @Sirfurboy based upon your request I will request a second opinion and open it.
For a second opinion, @Star Mississippi, can you weigh in on the observation that there have been no notable argument which are unopposed or supported in consensus and if you still suggest to open it again, I will do so. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking just in case, @Sirfurboy Do you have any detailed further point which will focus on it being deleted? Can you share it here? If it is the same as ones in discussion, we can avoid reopening it again. Whereas, if the requested users agree to it here, I will do so.
Greetings, you were a part of previous discussion which was also a request to reopen, can you spare a moment and check it again? I have added my notes above and did not find any strong argument or analysis which provides a requirement for it to be deleted or otherwise. Other than that, old newspaper findings which are passing for NGs were added in the last comment before the close. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is very very definitely not a snowball close. My concern here is that there are very clear policy reasons raised by a number of editors as to why this does not pass GNG. It is those policy objections that are unrefuted, from where I'm seeing this. We have a source review in which I found nothing that clearly meets GNG, and where coverage is localised. We have people agreeing with that source review and people disagreeing with it. Had this been closed as no consensus, I would have shrugged and walked away. I think it is a very clear case of failing notability, but some editors will have different views. So be it. But to call this a keep is to take a view that the strong policy based objections and the careful reading of sources and their discussion are all in error. It is to say I am wasting my time arguing on policy, and this is just a vote (but not even that, because the voting is a tie). Source reviews take hours - longer than the article creation. Am I wasting my time with them? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, every edit towards improvement on Wikipedia is significant. Don't you agree that, in this case, no consensus should have been if basic consensus of keep votes failed to present any argument or sources? About sources, we can't label them as unreliable on our own. That is not a discussion under AfD. Tie? I think we should follow votes with perspective.
About sources reviewing, you do have a point, it takes time.
I will open it again after 8 hours - only if no opinion is added by @Star Mississippi and @Rlendog in the meantime as they might be inactive for now considering time zones. After that, I will leave it for @Star Mississippi to consider.
Keep votes did fail to provide any unrefuted new sources. That's the point. There was no consensus to keep. Again, the only new !vote after the relist was not to keep. Also waiting 8 hours to re-open consumes most of the remaining window on this one. I would appreciate if you just re-open this and let it run to its deadline, rather than ignoring the additional response and early closing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered about arguments. Since, you seem sure about it with additional response (considering in same opinion per persist), I am opening it. Do remember that votes are not the only highlight for consensus but the participation including sources and discussion is. Just adding this, if it comes to evaluating sources, any one can do that but not denying reliability based on observations/assumptions without relevant discussion. A newspaper old or new is notable. I will check the discussion. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say beyond what is already in the AfD, but I did provide new source since @Sirfurboy🏄 raised his objections from the Las Vegas Sun and someone else provided a source from the Calgary Herald. But that doesn't even matter. Sirfurboy's refutations to the sources that were already provided were from essays, not guidelines or policies. It is fine for him to interpret the guidelines using those essays but it is not mandatory for everyone to agree with those interpretations, and such "refutations" are hardly "strong policy based objections". That is why we have these discussions in the first place. And even Sirfurboy's refutations were refuted, for example by discussion of how much of one of the newspaper articles' was quotes from the subject versus material that was not quotes from the subject. Again, Sirfurboy is welcome to disagree with those assessments but is not free to proclaim that those who disagree are inherently wrong. Again, that is why we have these discussions. And sometimes there are valid arguments on both sides but that doesn't mean there can't be a consensus. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rlendong as we should look at both perspectives and keep track of previous arguments to understand the latest ones. Anyway, you can discuss this further as you suggested in the re-opened discussion itself.
while I don't consider myself Involved per the wiki definition of it, I won't be the one to re-close this as I don't feel it would be appropriate to any who have been a part of the discussion. Just my opinion @HilssaMansen19, but I don't think this is one for you to re close either. By @Rlendog and @Sirfurboy raising their concerns here and at my Talk, it's a contentious decision and best closed by someone with a little more time at AfD. Not policy, and you are welcome to do otherwise StarMississippi01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understood. Btw, I am also active in the discussion itself by one comment as I am checking how it is going. Happy editing and enjoy to all! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, both in responding and since my relist @HilssaMansen19 @Sirfurboy. I have been mostly offline and have not had time to delve into this in the depth I hoped. I think your relist was the right call here @HilssaMansen19 and @Sirfurboy's requests to you (and me last week) have solid merit to let this discussion find resolution, whatever that might be. It's a better use of community time than a DRV and a potential new discussion. StarMississippi11:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies my friend, you have been doing great work here to be considered an inspiration for other/new/inexperienced users like me. Being an inspiration for others is not easy either. Don't mind my flattery and this is what I do when I meet an experienced one in the field, teenage stuff.
As for the discussion, yes, you are right. Even I felt that we should give it a day or more for a more proper consensus rather than DRV and having "mixed" discussions there. I am in favour of keep as well per various sources but if there might be a new noteworthy argument, it is worth re-opening.
I will leave the closing this time to you if it is fine?, as I am thinking of adding a comment there. If you might be busy, just ping me, I will not comment and wait to do the closure again. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moriwen, I am apparently more confused as this happened alongside others while closing Fusion Engine. I just cross checked it and the timings. Could there have been some sort of closing error by XFDCloser? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This was also redirected. @Moriwen, I took a screenshot of XFDcloser as there were 3 talk pages shown and it was apparently slow. Can you guide me on further steps as the pages were deleted? Shall I req an admin or raise s technical req. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to work on an assignment and this happens. I am feeling like sending the following to the XFDcloser, only if it was a user (crying virtually)...
Hello HilssaMansen19, has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, HilssaMansen19, how are you? Thank you for your generous feedback on the Draft: Dinho Ouro Preto. Regarding your comment, “It reads like a textbook essay/promotion about a person,” do you have any suggestions for improvement?
The article has diverse sources and broad coverage in academic works, print and online newspapers, television networks, and magazines, ensuring extensive verifiability and media coverage of the artist in the main Brazilian press outlets, thus meeting the criteria for notoriety.
Could you help me with some advice on the page, please? Mtvdanilo (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Draft: Yehuda Duenyas. After further review, I did remove some unnecessary prose and opinion. I have resubmitted the article if you care to take another look at it. BTW: this is a PAID article, my disclosure is on the talk pages.
I checked it and there is no paid disclosure at the draft? You should add it as a comment at the draft. Apart from that, Career is still not relevant. There are no notable works added there but it reads like WP:SYNTH. Details about separate subjects including a person's work which are not having enough notability on their own are not usually meant for WP:BLP. Shorten the Career section and if possible, add Awards and nominations in a table indicating winnings/nominations. Emmy is a notable award and it may contribute to the notability. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls20:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HilssaMansen19, the paid declaration is at Draft_talk:Yehuda_Duenyas and on my profile page as required by my most recent reading of WP:PAID policy. My reading of WP:BIO and WP:N is that the subject of the article must be notable, claims need only be verifiable from neutral reliable second party sources. I don't know where people get the idea that simple factual claims need to pass WP:N. I do like your suggestion to put the awards in a table tho. Thanks Again! Apriltools (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for reviewing this draft. He meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. His work has been cited 7000 times according to Scopus. I have now added this information along with the Scopus link to the draft. I have also removed all the primary sources for the research section and added secondary sources. I have now resubmitted the draft for review.HRShami (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed the concerns you raised regarding SheriffIsInTown's edits at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#False_flag. I'd recommend that if you have concerns along these lines, please open a case at either WP:AE or WP:ANI (my recommendation: with a bit more evidence in hand first). Beyond the standard mantra of "focus on content, not conduct" on article talk pages, the context of the complaints being in a section that is primarily about a dispute regarding a different claim means that it is highly unlikely that they will be taken up as-is, and there's a good chance that they'll accidentally derail the content discussion. If your intent was to simply bring this to SheriffIsInTown's attention rather than escalating directly to a report for admin review, I would recommend using user talk pages for such purposes. signed, Rosguilltalk15:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
After checking their continuous puff non-npov edits, I simply raised it to understand their pov. Rather than replying, they, SheriffIsInTown went on to edit/shift my comment without any discussion. Can you take a look at this -
[2] This edit is alone enough to raise an ANI right? This is basic Wiki definition of COI-non-NPOV-SYNTH.
I'm not seeing an issue with those edits in isolation--looking primarily at the first one that you identified as being particularly problematic, it looks like the claims are backed up by the cited sources. It may nevertheless be undue, or otherwise part of a broader pattern of editing that is problematic, but that diff by itself doesn't immediately demonstrate such issues. Generally speaking, to demonstrate problematic behavior meriting sanctions, you would need to demonstrate that there was a prior talk page discussion that these edits clearly contravene, or else that they're totally beyond the pale (e.g. clear fabrications, using obviously terrible sources that anyone should recognize are inadmissible on Wikipedia regardless of personal POV, etc.). Having a POV isn't sanctionable; ignoring consensus and/or best editing practices in favor of a POV is what is sanctionable. signed, Rosguilltalk16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 800 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer■01:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have completed a full rewrite of the "Finestre sull'Arte" draft, carefully addressing the concerns raised during the review process.
In particular:
- All promotional or non-encyclopedic language (including peacock terms and mission-style statements) has been removed.
- Each statement has been revised for neutrality and is now supported by reliable, independent sources (per WP:RS).
- The structure has been adjusted to match the standard encyclopedic format used for organizations.
We would also like to mention that equivalent versions of this article (translated into Italian, Spanish, German, and French) have been accepted on their respective Wikipedias without similar issues being raised.
We are available for any further adjustments if needed.
Thank you for your time and for your work as a volunteer reviewer. BobNemo24 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Bimbat (subcaste). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
This is awarded to HilssaMansen19 for accumulating more than 200 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pages SMasonGarrison 13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 37.111.159.180 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
