User talk:58.182.172.95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello 58.182.172.95, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Money emoji (talk · contribs), I revisited the article. My edits are still there, I had basically added this "APG report" section. My edits have a quote which I had duly placed within the quotation marks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the quote is fine, The notice was just about this sentence, which seemed to have been taken from the article without being a quote. Nothing that serious, just try to phrase the lead up to the quote in your own words. Best, 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Money emoji (talk · contribs), Thanks for pointing out. I have rephrased. Please review my edits. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY is clean, thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 13:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pusad[edit]

Nice work at Pusad bhai. Kindly check that there are disambiguations here and there after your additions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bhai Fylindfotberserk. I am almost done with additions, just cleaning up my own leftover mistakes. Please feel free to review after an hour or so. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll do it today or tomorrow. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indus Waters Treaty into Left Bank Outfall Drain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disable this "FLAWED" "SUBJECTIVE" "Diana" filter[edit]

Bad filter with "BAD CRITERIA" tripped it. Retract and I forgive you Diannaa, ... cite policy, subsection and para, and specific authority given to this tool.

DETAILS: If it is on wikipedia, fix the source. This is a FLAWED filter. Filter must cite the "CRITERIA" piped to the "specific subsection" with specific line. Cite counter guideline and recounter guideline to prove you are good faith. If not, my edits go through. Thank you for filter but filter is bad. My response to to you for the BLIND misuse of tools and filters [here]. (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplications[edit]

You appear to be adding the same or similar content about the legal status of animals in India to all sorts of articles. The beauty of Wikipedia is that you only need to create it once, and then link to it elsewhere using internal links. As it is, duplications will be more difficult to maintain and at least some of these instances look like "coat racks", shoehorning the content into related-but-different articles, and taking the reader away from the subject of the article. Dorsetonian (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I took a subject, wrote something about it. Linked it to all relevant places. Once you start treating IPs same way as you want to be treated, you will not have impulse to just post like this. Create once and deploy it in shorter trimmed contextual way every where, that is wikipedia, inter linked. grasp the concept. Adopt it, use it. And, once again, respect IPs too. I believe in your ability to rise above your limitations Dorsetonian. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DiplomatTesterMan[edit]

Hello, 58.182.172.95. You have new messages at Draft talk:The Establishment (Pakistan).
Message added 11:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DTM (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chalunka seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hi Kautilya3, Regarding my edits you had reverted as above, I have added the "same" edits to Chalunka but in "different place", i.e. instead of "see also" "section" of the article, I have moved those edits to the "see also" "template" embedded within the subsection of the article. This article on Chalunka had been "piped to" from many other articles and linked to categories related to 1971 IndoPak War where this article is treated as standalone article on the "Battle of Chalunka", that is how I randomly arrived on this article yesterday, and I added the "see also" to the article. My edits, are no way violating neutral point of view. At best you could say they must be placed as "see also" within the history subsection related to the battle and not as the "see also" of the article. Seems, you are using an automated template with a standard message. You autogenerated message is misleading. Please edit the message so that it reflects the accurate concern. Users of the tool is responsible for the malfunction, misbehavior, misleading stuff, etc. by the tool. Please use the tool appropriately. For example, you had choice to leave me a message with correct concern or move those to "see also" subsection yourself (collaborate), it would have taken lot less "cumulative time jointly from both of us, you and me" to enhance the article in such incremental manner, instead of wasting time on reverts with misleading autogenerated message and back and forth replies, etc. Outcome is still the same, my "content" is still in the article but in different place, still it took lot more joint effort from both of us. For minor stuff like this, please use "collaborative and incremental enhancement approach" and just move the content to appropriate section instead of reverts or talkpage messages. That way we both would have higher productivity. Thanks for the understanding. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turtuk and Chalungka are well known only due to wars[edit]

Addressing WP:DUE weight is part of WP:NPOV.
The edit is walking along the trail of past POV-pushers, enhancing and amplifying them. Even if battles were fought at Chalunka in the three wars, there was no major battle titled "battle of Chalunka". Your whole addition continues to be WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kautilya3,

1. Past POV pushers on Chalunka or Turtuk article: I am not aware of any past mess/POV/editors, I do not recall ever editing these articles before. With due credit and thanks to those who created these articles, there is some scope to enhance these. I will explain my actions so that you have better insight into my approach and intentions. I randomly came across battles 2 days ago through random reading of "timeline of 1971 war". I spent one whole day, cleaning up and enhancing as well as linking, interlinking many inconsistent and disjointed articles. My usual approach is to pick a certain random wider topic and then immerse myself, clean up the related articles, interlink, enhance, spot gaps and documents those to encourage future growth (add tags, reformat in a way that encourages expansion/growth), etc. Then keep moving on to other newer random interesting topics. Revisit the older topics in the future to fill the gap that was identified/documented in the earlier iterations. This urge to go back and edit is usually triggered if I am reading a book/newsreport and I realize it will be good for an article I had edited before where I had identified a gap (usually by inserting tag or by the growth-inspiring reformatting). My "see also" section edits play a useful role by providing the "background" and "context" of the section within article, hence must be retained. Without the wider context, localised "isolated" history has little meaning, does not excite the reader to stay on wikipedia longer, does not tempt them to expand/grow that article or other parts of wikipedia. All website designers design their website to retain the reader and contributor longer on the website by igniting their interest, curiosity, urge to contribute, etc. I have followed those conventions. This is how wikipedia grows and this is how wikipedia founders and foundation want editors to get involved.

2. Please google "battle of Chalunka". Even the "search summary" of the "first entry" talks about the "battles of Chalunka". There are five villages (in the order of closest to LoC to farthest from LoC): Thang (closest), Puchathang and Tyakshi, Turtuk, and Chalunka (farthest). These are spread over 37 km in a narrow river valley with an average distance of 9 to 10 km (see map). Except Turtuk, all other villages were in Indian control before the 1971 war. Pakistani Army held Turtuk, Turtuk lies between Tyakshi and Chalunka. Thang, Puchathang, and Tyakshi were in Indian control, but these 3 villages were hard to reach or resupply by the Indian Army as the only path through the narrow river valley was blocked by the Pakistan Army at Turtuk. Turtuk was neither a bigger village then, nor it was fiercer battle. Turtuk had strategic importance for both India and Pakistan. Due to control over Turtuk, Pakistan could easily take over other 3 villages held by India during any skirmishes/wars. "Turtuk village as a war trophy and strategic recapture" got bigger media coverage in India, after it was recaptured by India from Pakistan in 1971. It still remains in the Indian control. Each village has own military posts and fortifications. Some of those had fiercer battles than Turtuk itself, battle for each village fought by separate "companies, battalions, regiments and unit commanding officers" which sometimes regrouped and rejoined tactically. Of course, within the wider context all these were under same the "higher level command/divisions/corp/etc", my "see also" edits add to that wider context. For example, Chalunka battle got Mahavir Chakra to Major Chewang Rinchen. Since Turtuk became a war trophy, battles at remaining four villages are sometimes lumped together with Turtuk to show as if Turtuk was more hard fought, nationalist "chest beating" tendencies in media, etc.

3. Check preexisting sources in the articles: Most of this is already in the preexisting sources in the articles in the edits done by other editors before I came across these articles.

4. These villages are well known only due to the battles/wars: Without these several battles in these villages, these smaller villages in icy desert hold little value and interest to anyone. Any regional/national/international "weight" these villages have is only and only "DUE" to these battles and wars. That is what my edits had reflected.

5. Check google: Tools automate tasks but they have limitations and flaws. Tools become disruptive weapons in the hand of a user who does not apply additional checks and proper logic before taking tool-based action. Without doing your "very basic homework" to check google if there were Chalunka battles, it is "subjective" and wrong to say there are no Chalunka battles, and incorrect to say that my edits were UNDUE.

6. Use goodfaith: Additionally, if you did not like how I formatted then please take my edits in WP:GOODFAITH. Re-read "grab the eyeball and retain the reader/editor longer on the website" principal again in the point-1 above.

7. Vague reference to policies: Regrading your "Addressing WP:DUE weight is part of WP:NPOV" statement, please develop a habit of always citing the "specific and actionable (recipient can then agree/refute)" passage in the policy. If you cite "which specific edit" had violated which "specific policy passage" (cite policy, section, para and then the "exact statement" in the policy), then it can be refuted or agreed with. Otherwise, vaguely mentioning policies as above comes across as wikilawyering and deliberate, unsubstantiated, dubious stonewalling, i.e. I recall reading a passage "do not throw the rule book at others, show them exact actionable violation".

8. Prioritize collaborative enhancements over maintaining poor status quo (and earning-points-through-revert-tools): While re-reverting (my "see also" edits), (a) you also threw out "non-contentious" sourced new text, and (b) you also did not clean up mistakes/inconsistencies leftover by other previous editors e.g. should move the Chalunka#See_also above the Chalunka#References. This behavior is "good with tools to maintain status quo (even if it is bad status quo, good in preventing deliberate vandalism), but disruptive/against good enhancements/cleanup/collaboration" while lacking in due analysis and "intellectual depth". This wastes a lots of time and effort of every one involved. Still earned few points on tool (personal benefit for you), but left the article in the poor status quo (at the expense of wikipedia and other editors/me). Please reinstate my last edits to Chalunka, Turtuk and elsewhere, or reinsert after making your enhancements (collaborate and enhance). 58.182.172.95 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfless passion[edit]

You are showing an excessive obsession with battles and inserting them wherever you find an entry point. You need to stop this or you will get into trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kautilya3,

I somewhat like you, but I have some major concerns. Please take this message positively with loving heart.

1. I apologize if I hurt your feelings, because I like the good side of you, I have so far ignored your flaws. I only wanted to like, love and respect you for your good side. Sometimes a heart to heart well-intentioned talk is needed to understand and respect each other more. This was long over due. I might be wrong in my observations. All I really really intend from my heart at the end of this discussion is "to create a much stronger trust and collaborative friendship among us".

2. My observation:
(a) You spend a lot of time at wikipdia. It is like you never sleep. Good for wikipedia. Even good for me, e.g. if I need some article watched then I can request you to add it to your list. Unhealthy for your personal life.
(b) You are passionate and dedicated, very good. I like it in you. Whatever you "prioritize", I am sure you will eventually get it. I hope by the end of this discussion, I help you re-prioritize somewhat differently which would make you more successful while adding more collaborative allies to expedite that success.
(c) You are ambitious. Good for you, only if you nurture it well with humility and attain it without stepping over others head.
(d) You are educated, with good knowledge of tools and technology. Seems you do not have significant experience in website designing, and lack research based education/experience. Wild guess which could all be way off the mark, e.g. BTech perhaps even with MBA/MTech, but no research based masters degree or PhD, perhaps a very good techie but not much cross-functional mixed-biz-tech senior management experience, if a good coder then not a webdesigner, not working as professor or postdoctoral researcher because those editors talk in a very different manner, final analysis "astute budding techie in mid to late 20s".
(e) Great with using tools, great in doing more work in less time. Sometimes you use tools without applying additional analysis, tools are not the only but one of one of the many inputs to the final decision making process. Tools have flaws and limitations, tools can be dangerous without further due diligence. Do not press buttons on tools without that further analysis.
(f) Passionate and fast learner, all good, keep it up.
(g) Increasingly becoming better in using processes and policies, this is important to learn and follow. But sometimes you are doing it not in the right way, which wastes times and becomes disruptive.
(h) Good in maintaining status quo of articles, but not good in cleaning up and enhancing those. Which means not "prioritizing" the "real collaborative enhancements" "with equal respect" spirit of wikipedia.
(i) Rather Focused more on earning tool, points, levels, adminship, and it is reducing your ability to contribute to wikipedia as "enhancer".
(j) Politically astute, good in networking with those who you perceive have power to enhance your ambitions at wikipedia, but astute enough to stay out of their way even if they break bigger rules, you want to earn their favors and be in their goodbooks. Simultaneously, sometimes you end up being unfair to those who you perceive have less "clout" e.g. IPs. Beware, IPs are not dumb or stupid, they might not have same ambition to be admin, many of them might be lot more educated and more experienced than you are. Respect all, including school kid IP to CEOs with PHD IPs.
(k) Good as "maintainer of status quo", good in keeping "oversight through tools", but often lacking in "wider concept vision and intellectual depth". Details below.

3. My edits are selfless and well-intention with no expectation of rewards (points, tools, adminship, ego trip, power, etc): Going by your "subjective rules", you are several times more obsessed then me with these topics. Numerous other editors have left their concerns on your talkpage too, just run a filter on yourself to uncover archived messages/warning/advisories. You would have to sanction yourself first way before you point it out to me. It is not nice to come back with a new excuse to brow beat me if I pointed out your wrong use of the automated tool with inappropriate message.

4. Ambition is good, only if nurtured the right way: I noticed, you are overambitious. Several times I noticed you lack intellectual depth on topics and tend to misuse processes and tools just to exert inappropriate and subjective control. This is a big concern. Ambition is good, disrespecting others and not treating others equal (I recall your comments elsewhere "just an IP", etc), etc are not good. I have not taken it up before, but this can not go on forever. Be very careful in using tools, e.g. do not come back with NEW RETORT if someone points out a mistake by you. Please be humble enough to grow and collaborate. All editors are equal, majority of valid content is created by IPS (content and IPs constitute between 55% to 80%). I noticed you are doing this kind of brow beating etc only to IPs and newbies. On the other hand, always trying to cosy up to those who you think will help your future adminship, and you are smartly careful to stay out of their way even if they break bigger rules. While you readily pounce on IPs and others you perceive of lower "clout", sometimes with absurd and subjective "excuses" without doing your homework. Tendency to insert oneself and stonewall others, "obsessed/equipped with wikipedia tools and guidelines", while actually "lacking in-depth understanding of the topic" without doing homework is disruptive. Several of those edits/concerns you stonewalled (numerous by me, which you had stonewalled with vague wikipedia guideline without citing specific passage in guideline") were later accepted/incorporated/addressed/incorporated by other admins few months later. Though you had stonewalled me, but you kept silent because they were either admins (and you are not) or had more "clout" than you at wikipedia. I do not believe in "clout", that is why I resist becoming registered user, wanting to earn no points, tools, clout, etc. I am happy being an IP even at the loss of privacy/anonymity, even though sometimes I get pushed around a bit for being an IP. Obsession with tools, to just clock up points to wear hats to earn adminship, is not what wikipedia needs. Lots of tools are flawed too, easily misused by lazy and/or ambitious editors clocking up points. Please demonstrate in your actions the "real wikipedia spirit" of "equality, collaboration" (real inner satisfaction) and not the obsession with earning "points, tools, adminship, etc" (it provides no inner satisfaction or true happiness, temporary shallow ego boost only). Take a break from wikipedia for few weeks do de-obsess yourself.

5. For now, I am not leaving this concern on your talkpage. I am not taking it up elsewhere either. I am also not listing all such incorrect things I came across from you, i.e. I have a long list where I can rationally demonstrate how you were wrong. For now, I will let all that pass with the expectation that this will result a new positive collaborative and RESPECTFUL change in you, specially towards me and IPs. Next time, I will not let it pass silently. I will start showing each of your mistakes including the past ones, and so on, which might get you in bigger trouble. My intention is not to cause trouble for anyone/you, but I am not prepared to be mistreated either. Other alternative is, my preferred alternative, Kautilya please respect all editors including IPs and newbies, continue with tools and points accumulation, but please use those with responsibility and due care, stop misusing wikipedia guidelines and tools, instead cleanup and enhances the article. This is my attempt to reach out to your heart with good intentions.

6. In short, collaborate with me and others as EQUAL with RESPECT, I will give you ten times more love and respect. There are many good things in you and I would focus on those, start seeing and respecting that in all others. I will wipe all the past slate clean, restart afresh, give you my trust and respect once again. I expect same in return. This time please be very RESPONSIBLE and RECIPROCAL. You will find a great ally and resource in me. Show me you are capable of being "1. equal, 2. reciprocal and 3. respectful". I reciprocally await you and your actions with open arms and warm heart. Have a great day and advance happy new year. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Satipatthana Sutta, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Poor sources for such a claim. Please see WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SPAM. JimRenge (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hi JimRenge, Yes, I understanding. While making that edit, I had already I noted in my edit comments that this claim needs a better source. I was hoping someone who knows the topic better than me could source it. I too will keep it on my to do list. If and whenever I could find a better source I will re-add. Meanwhile, if you know some experts on the topic, please tag alert them if they have access to better sources. Thank you. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kushan_Empire into Sadashkana. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas. Yes Diannaa, you are right. Sorry for the oversight. Thanks for the reminder. Greetings. In case you know some expert editors on that topic, please tag them to the Sadashkana article, it was rather an empty stub which I had tried to improve by borrowing some text from related Kushan_Empire article. It needs more attention from someone close to the topic. have just started to dabble in this topic. Thank you. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DiplomatTesterMan[edit]

Hello, 58.182.172.95. You have new messages at Draft talk:The Establishment (Pakistan).
Message added 06:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DTM (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 58.182.172.95![edit]

Happy New Year!

58.182.172.95,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Bhai. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm A-NEUN. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Caste system among South Asian Muslims—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A-NEUN, I have spent whole day on this in draft mode and submitted my work only few minutes ago. Which makes me believe you have not taken sufficient time to adequately conduct the in-depth review of my edits and sources to provide a justified feedback. Your comment is too vague to be useful, hence unconstructive. In case you have any objections, please provide specific details for those to be meaningful e.g. mention the specific passage in my edit and provide the corresponding wikipedia policy being violated (specific passage in the policy down to "para and sentence"). Since there is counter policy for every policy, please cite the counter and counter-counter policies as well to sustain your objection. I will continue to watch that article, please refrain from any undue reverts or dilution of my edits without attempting to resolve it as requested above. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the brief reply, but your edit seemed to violate the editing guideline WP:TECHNICAL. I apologise for using a general warning message, but I could not find one which was more appropriate. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 18:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies and disregard above response. Reread contribution and have identified that it does not infact violate WP:TECHNICAL and I made a mistake to revert it. Your edit has been restored. Sorry for any inconvenince I have caused. Please disregard the above warning. Sorry again, A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 18:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for letting me know and for the restore. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management has been accepted[edit]

National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Muhandes (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you don't open an account, it would ease communication by much. Anyway, I spent a few hours and made the article presentable for DYK, see Template:Did you know nominations/National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management. Have fun. --Muhandes (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raam raam bhai Muhandes, happy new year. Thank you bhai for the effort. Bhai, jitni ghani apps/account, utni ghani notification, less real life. apana gujara nu e aachhi dhaal kat rhya s. Though I get pushed around a bit for being an IP, but people usually behave well once I push back on them. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I only speak English. Have fun. --Muhandes (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I saw you participating in numerous Haryana related articles so I presumed you Know Haryanvi language. I meant, "G'day mate, happy new year. I shun apps and registered accounts, etc, Less apps/accounts, means less notifications and addiction, easier to maintain a distance, hence more real offline life, sort of balance of having the cake and eat it tpp without smearing myself with it". Keep rocking. Have fun. Cheers. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tenacious contribution over the years towards maintaining educated related numerous articles, I sometimes feel sorry for you because you certainly need more help. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rewari (January 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Muhandes was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
WP:TOOSOON
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Muhandes (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that we cannot agree on everything. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for this one. --Muhandes (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Muhandes,

Let us go through this step by step, so you can understand my reasoning.

1. "Too Soon" is not a a policy or guideline, its just an essay, can not be used to raise a "violation" or "rejection".

2. Scope for subjectivity in the application of above mentioned essay, the essay is useful but even that essay does not provide clarity when it comes to educational institutes which keep popping up with regular frequency in a large nation like India. Most of these have long incubation and implementation timeframe, not just in India but also in the developed nations. This leave a huge scope of the "subjective" interpretation of the "essay". I have raised this as a concern on the "essay" talkpage so that the original editors could bridge that gap in the essay by including more specific criteria regarding educational and medical institutes/universities/hospitals, etc. I believe, once addressed it will also make both your and my life easier too, hence we/you have a stake too.

3. On the discussion thread of Major clean up of AIIMS article, please jump direct to the "More explanation of "subjective" criteria for the "operational AIIMS"' section.

4. Please read the talkpage of AIIMS Rewari.

5. Read the lede of AIIMS Rewari, especially where the union government of the largest democracy in the world is providing status update to the apex democratically directly elected body of the nation (lok sabhs / parliament) that AIIMS Rewari's own campus will be operational by fy2022-23.

6. Compare and contrast Indian National Defence University (INDU) (accepted, long surviving, current article) and AIIMS Rewari article (rejected as above). Then reread the item-2 above, within the link given in the item-2 (repeated here), especially re-read the item 2, 5 and 8.

7. INDU has exist for several years. AIIMS Rewari, uses the similar/same reputed secondary sources (multiple national newspapers). INDU has been approved only by the UNION Cabinet and draft bill is still pending in the parliament. "AIIMS Rewari" exceeds the criteria achieved by the INDU article. AIIMS Rewari, after being passed as an "ACT of parliament", now "exists legally" as reported by the reputed secondary sources. Since INDU has been allowed/survived for several years, it becomes convention/precedence. AIIMS Rewari passed even bigger criteria than that has been applied to INDU in the past. Based on this, there is no valid reason for rejection of AIIMS Rewari article.

8. You have been maintaining All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) article which lists all the "Approved/Confirmed" AIIMS. you have kept out the crustalball AIIMS (not yet approved, unacceptable). Earlier when you made the edits to AIIMS, you chose to include "AIIMS Rewari" as a legit approved entry in the list of approved institutes (or others made the edit, but you reviewed and decided to retain). You presumably did so on the basis of reputed reliable secondary sources i.e. reputed national newspapers. Now, you can not take a self-contradictory stand to suddenly say "AIIMS Rewari" is not legit/approved/worthy topic when I base the judgement on the same sources (plus many more reputed secondary sources to bolster my claim). Inconsistent application of a self-contradictory and subjective criteria is WP:Disruptive.

9. A simple google search on "AIIMS Rewari", "All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Rewari", and its alternate name "AIIMS Manethi", "All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Manethi", throws up several thousand results in the English language alone. Among those are numerous results from reputed independent secondary sources (multiple national and international newspapers). India has more than 22 scheduled language. A reviewer is ought to at least conduct a basic google search. Several times more reputed secondary search results exist in non-english languages. Though amount of secondary sources in English alone is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. WP:Incompetence.

10. In absence of any further clarity, and to avoid subjectivity, please use the past convention/precedence (same criteria as INDU) for all future articles to let every article survive/approve as long as those have been passed by the "competent committee/body/authority" e.g. state cabinet, union cabinet, legal/govt governing body responsible for approving the proposals by private/trusts/Non-profit/organisation for setting up institutes.

Thanks.

58.182.172.95 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AfC process requires the reviewer to use their experience and judgement to determine if an article would pass the WP:AfD process. In this case it was an easy review for me, since I was already in so many AfD discussions about higher education institutes and I know an institute which does not operate yet will have very low chance of passing AfD. In fact, there are universities which exist and operate and still failed AfD. That's why I know it is too soon. As for INDU, you will always find a contrary example to every rule, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One is not required to be consistent with every other article, all one can do is use their best judgement and do the best on a case-by-case basis. --Muhandes (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Institutes of Medical Sciences[edit]

Sorry that I have to disagree with you on this one as well. The article is fine as it is and does not require "major cleanup". If you think some changes are required, please follow WP:BRD and discuss them on the talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes,
Assume good faith for all edits. Treat editors as equal. As per stats the majority of valid edits to wiki are done by IPs. You might spend excessive time in a specific area of wikipedia, none of us owns it, we all co-own in collaborative, mutually respectful, goodfaith, and equal manner. Just because you do not personally like the "details in the article", it does not make it invalid/violations. If there is no violation of wikipolicies, then edits stay.
Time wasting revert with no specific objections and supporting policy: Policies are different from guidelines. If no policy is violate, do not wikilawyer with guidelines. If you cite a policy, then there are multiple counter-policies/guidelines. To make your objection sustainable, make sure to quote the counter-policy/guideline (to your own objection) and then counter-counter-policy/guideline (to justify your objection, which also demonstrate you are not being disruptive with wikilayering). No vague throwing the whole rule book/policy at me, you must cite the "specific violation" by mentioning the exact portion of my edit, and corresponding "exact section, para, sentence" of the policy which was violated.
Make fruitful use of each other's effort: The blanket vague reverts with no specific justification is just poor wikilawyering, hence unacceptable. I have got no time to waste on dealing with disruptive reverts with no specific justification, specially after investing several hours of my effort to enhance an article.
Do not let personal preferences overrule policies: I noticed, you have a personal preferences of keeping article minimalistic. For example, you would often remove the related "see also" items, which means you are repeatedly not following goodfaith by letting your "personal" and "subjective" habit/preference of "minimalistic" look overrule others goodfaith valid edits that violate no policies. A good website designer tries to design the website to maximize the eyeballs and time spent by readers per visit on the website (wikipedia in this case). Very minimalistic preference also goes against this widely used principal of mazimizing "eyeball and time spent by per user per visit". Please refrain from removing "see also" items unless you can clearly demonstrate there is no relation, e.g. "most think tanks" are part of educational institutes, a "list of educational institutes" warrants inclusion in the "see also" section of "list of think tanks" as well as "individual think tanks".
Since you provided no justification for your reverts, I am restoring all my edits.
I have never been in your way. I do no appreciate such time wasting revert. Make you you are extremely sure you know exactly what you are doing if you are disrupting others effort. I like you, but I do not like it if you take me for a ride. Let us reboot and reengage in fruitful friendly collaborative manner. Thank you. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with being IP and everything to do with WP:BRD. I WP:AGF at all steps and with every editor. I just don't agree with you that your edit improves the article, and if you think otherwise, per WP:BRD, the burden of showing the changes are beneficial is on you. Please discuss the changes that you want to perform on the talk page of the article. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem attacks[edit]

I am warning you that this behavior will not be tolerated. I disagree with you on this edit and maybe others. We should discuss it and I kickstarted the discussion. Try me, you will find that in most cases I come to agreement with other editors. However, going back to a discussion five months earlier, which has nothing to do with you, just to smear my name, is unacceptable. Being IP does not give you carte blanche to insult other editors. I personally will not tolerate it. --Muhandes (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Muhandes, I just saw it. I have already provided my detailed response here. I only wanted to provide the "constructive feedback" to further deepen the mutual collaboration. I apologise for your hurt. Please let me know if could do more to heal the pain I have caused you. Regards. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous, apology accepted.
I would usually avoid giving other editors personal advise, but you specifically asked me to let you know what you can do.
Start by the obvious, deleting your abusive comment. You have my permission to delete my response as well.
Second, for the future, avoid ad hominem arguments. Please take this in the most constructive manner possible, I am just trying to reflect the reality to you. Here is how our conversation went:
  • Step 1 I ask for discussion on the content.
  • Step 2 Your ad hominem answer is I have provided detailed answer here regarding how you are being disruptive. (my emphasis)
  • Step 3 I repeat my request that you discuss the content
  • Step 4 You resort to an ad hominem attack, this time in an unrelated discussion. Lets not repeat that.
  • Step 5 For the third time, I ask that you address the content, not me
  • Step 6 Again, your answer starts with an ad hominem My reply re your behavior... If the behavior has. (my emphasis)
  • Step 7 For the fourth time, I ask you to address the content, not me
  • Step 8 Finally some content discussion on your side.
I think this speaks for itself.
I need to get back to work, and I will address the content later. I hope from now on we will discuss content and not my personality or habits. --Muhandes (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Muhandes,
For the record,
1. Did what you asked me to do. I have deleted the comment you did not like.
2. I thank you for your feedback, all kind of feedback is good to have.
3. Before you posted this comment, I have already provided the point-by-point response on the article talkpage to your replies to my edit summary.
4. I had asked for the "actionable specifics of your objection", you provided those only after the step-7, which I immediately addressed. My original edit summary had ample "point-by-point details", your revert comment should have addressed/referred to those in "specific and actionable" manner to enable immediate discussion regarding edits/text.
5. I avoid stepping on others toes, if someone's behavior is causing me loss of productivity (WP:Disruptive pattern towards multiple/same editors even on same article or across multiple articles) or is in the way of my edits (undoing several hours of work with no explanation, that is unfair to me), please be fair enough to allow me to give feedback (wikipedia policies permit that). I had primarily intended the following items as the "constructive feedback" only with the intent to "deepen our mutual understanding for the more effective future collaboration":
(a) Instead of vague BRD, I request you to please directly provide the "specific actionable" point-by-point explanation "upfront" in your first revert/reject comment itself, because I had already documented the "point-by-point" detailed summary of edits in my "original edit comments", WP:COMPETENCE, WP:UCS
(b) Instead of essay based rejections (essays can be subjective too), I request you to please cite policies and then guidelines. Even in that case still cite the specific para and passage of the policy and corresponding violation so that it is "specific and actionable" for the recipient/me. The onus is on the person reverting/rejecting to provide the "specific and actionable" objection so that those can be addressed in point-by-point manner. Vague revert/rejections with no specifics and based on subjectivity are to be avoided for the reason of WP:GAMING and WP:POINT.
(c) I request you to please use "iterative collaborative approach" as your first choice, i.e. retain my edits that you liked, then raise the point-by-point actionable-specific objection to my edits you
objected to (may temporarily remove the ones you objected too, but create article talkpage discussion) or
needed more explanation for (leave those in the article due to goodfaith because seeking more info but not yet objecting, but raise a thread on the article talkpage). Using this in the first revert/reject comment itself, helps us avoid long discussion, before eventually arriving at the actual discussion of the text.
(d) in case of "subjectivity in the criteria/policy/guidelines", please let it go and allow goodfaith to other editor (not insist on your own self rules), specially if there is a precedence contrary to your self-rules then please use that as criteria to eliminate subjectivity. E.g. as I have suggested here. WP:RRULE.
(e) you may have preference for the minimalist "see also" list, many other editors want to see "richer" content. For example, If another editor has chosen to insert "list of educational institutes" to the "see also" of "list of think tanks" because most think tank are either based out of research institutes/universities, have close links with them and at least carry out the similar research-data based policy making work, please leave those item in. WP:GOODFAITH. This even helps drive more traffic to wikipedia, grabs more eyeballs, retains readers longer on wikipedia per visit. Having minimalistic "see also" or having a pattern of "repeatedly minimising" legit "see also" is disruptive, drives traffic away from wikipedia, minimises per trip time spent on wikipedia, basically harms the wikipedia.
(f) Please use the "future proof" editing style which minimises the future rework. e.g. retain redlinks to draft articles. Repeatedly deleting such redlinks, causes more rework in future, wasted productivity when applied to multiple articles or multiple times to the same article is disruptive pattern. WP:Redlink specifically encourages the selective redlinks to encourage creation of more articles, that is how wikipedia grows, draft articles carry even higher weightage in retention of redlinks piped to drafts because someone has already put the effort, and newly created articles will not be orphans from the outset, this also minimises the risk of new article being created under different name other than what has been consistently piped from across multiple articles. An editing style which enhances the collective productivity and maximises the content growth supersede the personal intolerance of redlinks.
(g) Let us take the constructive feedback in the right spirit and stride by assuming goodfaith and good intentions towards the feedback. Legit substantiated constructive feedback is not same as "ad hominem", attack, insult, etc. If we review/reject others work with no or vague non-specific and non-actionable comments, we must be open to the feedback too. Others have the same rights. See also Wikipedia:Overreacting.
(h) None of my actions have resulted in reverts of hours of your work, or wastage of your time/effort/productivity through my reverts/roadhblocking/disruption, your actions have caused this towards me few times, hence my feedback to you. This is not a one way street. We must be open to the constructive feedback from others too, specially if we are slowing down their productivity. E.g. if you had provided me an itemised actionable objection upfront in your first revert comment, hours of back and forth messages could have been avoided, this too is significant loss of productivity.
6. I am concerned that you may not like my response above (preceding item-5). I am trying to find a balance. I want to make reasonable efforts to sooth your emotional heart, but I still request you to please rationally take my concerns into considerations. I hope I do not end up venturing into a zone that still leaves you feeling hurt. If you feel this comment above is hurtful or wrong of me, let me know, I will delete it if you want me to do so. As long as you have read it, that is good enough for me.
7. I am sorry, all this discussion is disturbing your real life work. Happy working, family first and then work. Now you know why I feel it is better not to register with apps/wikipedia/notifications.

58.182.172.95 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to dislike in constructive discussion. The one important thing is this: no matter how correct you are and how wrong I am. No matter how terse my response was, based on essays, or even on invented standards. No matter if I had good faith or not. Always address the content, not the person. Saying I was wrong to revert is OK. Saying I have a habit of making my own rules is not OK. Do you see the line where it becomes ad hominem? It is almost 21:00 and I am still at work, I will try to address our content disagreements later tonight or tomorrow. --Muhandes (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now addressed all content issues to the best of my ability.
I read what you wrote above and I don't necessarily agree I have taken it all to mind. Keep in mind that like many experienced editors, on some days I edit hundreds of articles and just can't be bothered to write half a page of explanations on each edit. The BRD process is our only way to survive: WP:AGF, but if one doesn't agree with an edit, revert with terse but polite communication. If things escalate, that is the time to start spending time on explaining. My suggestion is that you don't be offended, definitely don't resort to ad hominem attacks, and work with the flow, not against it. Have fun. --Muhandes (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management[edit]

I see that you added coordinates to the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management article. But they were over 110 km off and pointed to a farm field. I wonder if you could share the source of these erroneous coordinates, as I am interested to know how such errors propagate. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management[edit]

On 5 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management has conducted research to improve the taste and nutrition of a children's dietary supplement distributed by the government of Kerala? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism[edit]

Just saw your funny nationalist message on the Alexander the Great talk page, full of pain over the fact that 2300 years ago Alexander the Great, a freaky-scary European colonialist, kicked the asses of the Indians with his Great Greek Spear. And now seriously: Hey, anything can happen! At least there is evidence of this, in contrast to the fantasies of Indian nationalists. Wikipedia is about at least some sources, not WP:OR/WP:NPOV aka fantasy telling. When you become smarter and stop being a nationalist, you will stop taking events from the past at your own expense and perhaps become a good participant in this project.

Nomination of List of institutions with Sanskrit mottos for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of institutions with Sanskrit mottos, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of institutions with Sanskrit mottos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:58.182.172.95&oldid=1194642788"