User talk:Trap133

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Trap133, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Meaghan Davies. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add any message for me here.

Trap133, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Trap133! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

For an editor who its new here you are showing an unusual pattern of edits. This pattern might be interpreted as showing fairly substantial previous experience editing the English Language Wikipedia.

Please will you comment on this? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent Yes, I have experience. Before creating this account a long time ago I used to contribute to Wikipedia as an Ip user. Thanks for asking. Trap133 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that explains your fluency with the system Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussions[edit]

You may find it useful to add the gadget "Twinkle" in your user preferences. Used wisely, Twinkle can perform many tasks, including full and correct deletion nominations. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will enable it tomorrow because I will be auto confirmed user tomorrow. Thanks for this. Trap133 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pleasure. I have actioned both of your requests Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for accepting my requests. Trap133 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the rationale is against policy, for example a frivolous nomination, such requests are treated at face value, certainly by me. If I disagree I will place a Keep !vote in the discussion even though I nominate it on a requestor's behalf. I will also choose to remain 100% neutral if I have no opinion.

I believe this is a valuable service we can give to less experienced editors, even if we believe them to be incorrect. I feel it important always to reference the requestor and quote their rationale verbatim.

Twinkle is a powerful tool. We remain 100% responsible for the edits we ask it to make on our behalf. May I suggest that you take baby steps when starting to use it and double check everything it does on your behalf and in your name, please. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent Ok. Thanks for your valuable suggestion. Trap133 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, Twinkle users are 100% responsible for their edits. I am concerned to see @Phil Bridger's note to you about PRODs below.

The fact that Twinkle makes life easy is not a reason to use it indiscriminately. It is intended to make sure things happen correctly not to be used to create potential havoc. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition[edit]

Hey, to answer your question regarding your additions to Hindustan Times, India Today, Aaj Tak and CNN-News18. Channels and publications publish hundreds to thousands of reports over the years, and make mistakes from time to time, in which the reputable ones eventually issue corrections. Due to this, for additions related to "fake news", one would have to cite sources that specifically address a particular publication and discusses its reporting in general. The fact check that you have cited mentions that several publications misreported an incident, that does not show sufficient weight to be individually included in their respective Wikipedia articles. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, not everything that is reported on should be included in articles. Please go through the section on balancing aspects to understand this concept. On a sidenote, the fact check does not mention the India Today magazine but rather the TV channel India Today. In addition, don't immediately revert back when your addition is removed, read bold, revert and discuss to see how to handle disputes and not engage in edit wars. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you not removing the full controversy section on these articles? Wikipedia only shows facts Wikipedia doesn't care about reputability. If not then go and remove the controversy sections of these articles. Trap133 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trap133, did you understand anything I said above? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate"

Aaj Tak was fined ₹ 1 lakh and asked to broadcast apologies for fake news regarding Sushant Singh Rajput. The channel published fabricated last tweets by the actor on the channel, claiming that they were made by him a few days before his death and then deleted. Aaj Tak later removed its article with this fake news published in it

." It is mentioned in the article of Aaj Tak. According to your previous statement, this should be removed because: Your reason :

Channels and publications publish hundreds to thousands of reports over the years, and make mistakes from time to time, in which the reputable ones eventually issue corrections. Due to this, for additions related to "fake news", one would have to cite sources that specifically address a particular publication and discusses its reporting in general. The fact check that you have cited mentions that several publications misreported an incident, that does not show sufficient weight to be individually included in their respective Wikipedia articles. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, not everything that is reported on should be included in articles.

Trap133 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike in the case you added, it deals with the reporting on SSR in general and involves a fine. If you go through archives of Alt News, you can find multiple mentions of Aaj Tak. Not all of them are present in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate This is a big incident not like the previous, most of the news channels have covered this news without checking the fact and you think this should not be added? Trap133 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this has happened before, on many occasions. For example, see this one. When it involves multiple publications, it's usually due to them taking it from an agency feed. At the very least, an incident would need more coverage other than a single fact check to have any weight for inclusion.

Btw, with regards to your comment in Special:Diff/1029329406, I don't think your edits are vandalism just misguided because it give undue weight to a specific report. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate. Ok fine you did your best to explain me everything. I reverted everything. Thanks for everything. Have a good day. Trap133 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for your patience, good day to you too! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate. Hey, Can you give a vote to these AFD discussions? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaghan Davies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Clausen Trap133 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trap133, I'll see if I can do that. I might leave a comment instead of an !vote. Others generally don't like it when someone calls someone else to participate in a discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to do anything that looks like canvassing; its concerning for any account that immediately goes off nominating AfDs[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Per your talk page above Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just tell him to vote there. He can vote anything he want. And it is just first time I will not do it again. Trap133 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs[edit]

I notice that you have proposed deletion of many articles about schools and colleges within a few minutes. Did you really manage to determine that they were uncontroversial deletion candidates in this time? If so, how? I don't have the time to check them all myself, but I feel very dubious about your methods, especially as you are nominating so quickly as not to notice that you have misspelt the word "college" in many of your proposals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger. These articles literally did not cite any independent source. All fails WP:GNG that's why I quickly tagged them. My work is to tag them deletion is in the hand of admins. I have checked every and each article. Yes, that is my mistake to misspelled the college word. Thank you for asking. Trap133 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of many articles about universities and colleges. These are pages of educational institutions. Any educational institution is notable even if it is a single room; as it helps to increase human knowledge. Pretty much all secondary and post-secondary educational institutions are notable. It is not the page of some superstitious temple or church. The third-party source of these articles are also available in the references. One may check the university webpage or simply can google. These institutes are also degree-granting institutions. University and college webpage is the most reliable reference. If the reference does not exist on some pages, then please add the reference. Why are you tagging every educational institution page for deletion? You can improve the article. If you think the reference is not proper, and these educational institutes do not exist at all... then please google search. If you find something like that, then you can tag. --Soumitrahazra (talk)

How will you determine the notable college? Except for Oxford and MIT, no other colleges are notable then. How many colleges produce a Noble Prize winner? --Soumitrahazra (talk)

Hey, Soumitrahazra. I think you should read this WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. # At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. I think you are not aware of this. If you can prove the notability of these articles then you are welcome. AFD means discussion before deletion. Prove notability there. Deletion is not in my hand it is the hand of admins. Hope you understand.--- Trap133 (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion which concerns your deletion campaign[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Oficialtowhid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trap133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a suck user of this man! This is totally injustice. I even don't know him. Please unblock me. Trap133 (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using my checkuser tools, I see no reason to disagree with the block. Also, I believe you mean "sockpuppet", not "suck user". Yamla (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.