User talk:Dustfreeworld

October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello, I'm Jannatulbaqi. I have removed your contribution (awards section) on the ANI article. I don't think it is needed there. Because it was given to ANI founder Prem Prakash and not to ANI. Thanks Jannatulbaqi (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ve removed any content from that article. No. Would you please provide the diff?

OTOH, you have removed the content I added just now [1]. The person was an employee (and founder) of ANI and he got an award for his contribution to journalism. I don’t think that content should be removed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Did the person win the award, or the organization? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] The person. But it’s the right place for that content. Please see Agence France-Presse#Prizes and awards --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, re your recent edit, I think it obviously doesn’t align with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and probably has an issue with WP:NOBLANK as well. WRT the concern you expressed in your edit summary, we are not talking about Article for creation or Article for deletion ... As long as the person was mentioned in news/ media (I.E.. reliable source), then the person is not a journalist of nobody and can be included. That edit of yours is removing cited text.

Aside, it's ... interesting that you aren't restoring the other edit of mine, which is also cited and relevant to to article, but choosed to remove more content instead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In case you think the source isn’t good enough, why not help FIXIngTHEPROBLEM by finding a better source? E.g., https://freepresskashmir.news/2017/09/23/journalismisnotacrime-list-of-journalists-killed-in-kashmir-proves-otherwise/amp/ from Free Press Kashmir? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again, for a person to be notable, they need to have more than just their name mentioned once in an article about someone else. Please read WP:NBASIC. If we allowed anyone who has had their name mentioned in the news, then almost anyone would be "notable", myself included. On top of that, you are wrong about the person in question being a journalist, as the article you cited claimed they were only a photographer. Also, it is not my responsibility to find a better source, the WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it?

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

It’s the first time I heard that whenever we mention a name in our article we need to check the notability guideline, which is a very innovative interpretation of the guideline I would say.

As to whether the person was a journalist, you may want to read this. OTOH, even *if* we really don’t think he’s a journalist, the issue can easily be fixed by changing the section heading from == Notable journalists == into == Notable employees ==, in accordance with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

P.S. As the content *is* appropriate for inclusion, I don’t think ONUS applies here. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why you think he is notable enough, other than "he died and was mentioned in an article about someone else". - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also starting to grow weary of your WP:WIKILAWYERING, especially when you keep throwing WP shortcuts at me that you obviously have not fully read (I.E. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, not being related at all to non-notable additions, WP:NOBLANK for reverting a non-notable addition, and your attempts the last time we spoke (which you have conveniently removed from this talk page)), I feel it is starting to verge on WP:DISRUPTIVE. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. Aside, my attempts the last time we spoke to suggest that we focus in commenting article content, instead of commenting on editors, seems failed; and I’m now being thrown some “personalised” new WP shortcuts.

Anyway, that article does seem controversial and people seem to have strong feelings about it. I guess it may not be worth for me to spend much time on it anymore. Let’s accept that we are happy with a subpar/problematic article for our readers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, let's be clear, 2 days ago you accused me of editing in bad faith, stalking you (across a total of 2 pages that were on my watchlist long before you ever started editing), claimed statements I made regarding policy were untrue, threw completely unrelated WP shortcuts at me in an attempt to scare me, mentioned "articles that [you] 'owned'", and even admitted that you were lazy and WP:TIRED. All because I questioned your adding multiple empty section headings to an article and your incorrect maintenance templates. My comments about your tban (of which, indoor air pollution could be construed as a health/medical topic) were not a personal attack, those (tbans AND personal attacks) are taken very seriously around here. If you think the article is "subpar", work to improve the content already there, please do not add additional "subpar" content and throw more unrelated WP shortcuts at me that you haven't bothered to read.

And if you are going to add a person as a "notable" anything, then the ONUS is on you to show they pass notability concerns, not to tell me to find more sources to prove that the person passes. Otherwise, why don't we just add every photographer/journalist that ever worked for the organization and happened to be mentioned in some random article? Why don't we add every citizen that has ever been merely mentioned in a newspaper article to their community's article's list of "notable residents"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you aren’t admitting that your interpretation of WP:BASIC is inappropriate. It seems to me that you are preventing other editors to improve our article through addition of content. Perhaps you would like to edit the AFP page and trim most of it’s content according to your criteria? (Aside, that person died from a parcel bomb when he’s an employee of ANI, how many employees of a news agency died like that?) Re our last conversation, I don’t think it’s related to this discussion (unless people are taking things personal). That said, I don’t remember that I’ve ever mentioned the phrase “personal attacks”; but if you think it’s the appropriate description, perhaps it really is. Again, I hope we aren’t taking things personal, and people can comment on article content instead of editors. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) I just wanted to clarify your thinly veiled remark ("my attempts the last time we spoke to suggest that we focus in commenting article content, instead of commenting on editors, seems failed; and I’m now being thrown some “personalised” new WP shortcuts"), that, since you chose to blank your entire talk page and seem to have already forgotten, it was you that was assuming bad faith and commenting on my behavior. As I previously asked, and you ignored, please explain why he is notable, other than "he died"? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is NOT a valid argument. What did he do in life that makes him notable? As opposed to "John Doe, photographer" who died and was merely mentioned by name in an article about someone else? What makes him more notable than anyone else who has ever died? Did he win awards? Did he cure cancer? Tell me anything about the person other than "he was a photographer who died" (which is all that the ref you originally cited states, and is why I removed it from your newly created section titled "notable journalists"). What is your "interpretation" of what makes a person notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, if you do not believe in using the accepted WP standards regarding notability of people? Otherwise, accept that he is not notable enough for inclusion in a "notable people" section and move on. I have explained myself quite clearly and am done playing your silly games. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I can’t understand why people who come to my talk page to make comments on me are complaining that I’m commenting on their behaviour. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that can’t be used to support that the relevant content should not be included in the comparable article that is under discussion. The person died ... in a way that most newspapers will report ... as a photojournalist .. and you are asking what did he do in his life ...

And basically what you mean seems to be that almost none of the employees of a news agency should be mentioned in the news agency’s article ... Anyway, I don’t think this is going anywhere, and as I’ve said, “I guess it may not be worth for me to spend much time on it anymore. Let’s accept that we are happy with a subpar/problematic article for our readers.”P.S. FYI the TP was blanked because that article is the subject of a lawsuit and I don’t know if I would travel to India some day. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, "It seems to me that you are preventing other editors to improve our article through addition of content" could be construed as a personal attack, considering I have clearly explained my actions based on WP P&G multiple times. Please be more careful with your words in the future. As well as this somewhat tendentious edit summary that I just noticed, since no one said "admitting that one is WP:TIRED is not an appropriate thing to do". You said you were WP:TIRED, I only suggested maybe taking a wikibreak (which is exactly what WP:TIRED says). - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

After being incorrectly described as having accused you of personal attacks, now I’m told that what I said “could be construed as ...” OTOH, I do want to know if phrases like “your silly games” could be construed as ... Re “Please be more careful with your words in the future.” All I can say is ‘same to you’. Re the ES, you said “even admitted that you were … WP:TIRED”, isn’t that implying that it’s not an appropriate thing to do? Anyway, it surprised me (and perhaps it’s my pleasure?) that you are interested in the edit summary of my User page ... if I may ask, how long has it been on your watchlist? Lastly, I’d like to suggest again that let’s not taking things personal. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you said you were WP:TIRED and lazy, to which I suggested you take a wikibreak (just as WP:TIRED itself suggests, if you had read it). I never said anything that would even suggest it is "not appropriate", as I have taken a few wikibreaks myself during my tenure here (and may have even previously made a couple tendentious edits myself before a stay in the hospital due to a mental health crisis), but I learned from it, listened to other editors, and it (allegedly) made me a better editor. Putting words in my mouth, or making the statement that I am "preventing you from improving an article" when you are making redundant edits or adding something that does not pass notability concerns is outright false. Since you continue to provide nothing that would suggest the person is notable enough for inclusion (besides, again, "he died" or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), then I stand by my revert that you have not provided anything to substantiate their notability or inclusion. No, random employees of a news agency that have not done anything of note (won an award for their work, published a book, had books/news articles written about them, held an esteemed position, "made a name for themselves", etc.) are not notable enough for inclusion. As I said, you don't see entries for people in "notable people" sections simply because they died. Otherwise, I (or anyone else) would be able to add my father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc. to the "notable residents" section of my hometown just because "they died and their name was mentioned in the paper". That is why we have the standards that we do, and that is what keeps every article on this project from being "subpar" (or keeps the majority of us constantly striving to improve/maintain them). The fact that you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT the first several times I tried to explain it, and continue trying to fault others for your own misunderstanding, further proves my point. And the fact that you want to just keep arguing the same point instead of listening or discussing it shows me that I am just wasting my time with you. I will not try to discuss things with you in the future, I will just post a warning template to your talk page and move on, and if you want to keep being tendentious, disruptive, and pointlessly argumentative instead of learning the P&G like the rest of us had to, then I can not be held responsible if you get blocked for your own actions. I will suggest one more time that if you are this overwhelmed by the policies and guidelines that the rest of us strive to follow, maybe a wikibreak is your best option. But having a poor attitude, snapping at other editors, taking personal offense at the P&G (or people commenting on your talk page trying to help you), or claiming that a page is "subpar" when you are not willing to improve the content that is already there (or your editing) instead of adding additional "subpar" content, is not going to get you far around here. Good luck... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, we may have very different understanding of our policies. While I do think the person is important enough for inclusion, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, simply “not notable” is not the license for outright removal (our policies only allow direct removal for serious issues such as libel and vandalism). Editors should discuss on article talk *instead of* direct revert. Not to mention that you aren’t just removing that person’s entry, but you are removing the whole section (WP:NOBLANK). Even if, I say if, that person shouldn’t be included, the section and the heading should be kept, and other editors can continue to add new entries to it.

From my research, there were 55 journalists killed worldwide in 1995, and I think being one of them would be notable. I don’t know how old you are, but in my generation, back in those days, parcel bombs were always something in the news, not to mention that it’s even more notable if someone was killed that way because of their journalistic work. But as I said, this is going nowhere. My main concern is, the article of a Western news agency can have that section, but the article of an Indian news agency can’t (but contain a lot of negative content instead) can we blame the latter’s government for sueing our editors or the WMF? Anyway, as I said this is going nowhere.

I’m sorry to hear about your previous mental issues, but I really can’t agree with your comment that “you ... being tendentious, disruptive, and pointlessly argumentative ... poor attitude”, etc. And yup, wikibreak is good, I have had that and probably will have that again very soon too; but perhaps it’s not a good idea for us to suggest others to do so. Thanks anyway, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As to your call for prove of notability, besides the one more source that I have provided above, here is another:

• https://thekashmiriyat.co.uk/on-26th-martyrdom-anniversary-mushtaq-ali-continues-to-inspire-the-journalist-fraternity-in-kashmir/?amp=1

That photojournalist is still remembered and reported 26 years after his death, which shows sustained/ lasting coverage. The source is easy to find, and I’d rather we’d spend more time in finding sources than having endless discussion here ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• [2], from Kashmir Life. I start to suspect that someone may want to write an article for him.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I'm done. You wasted my evening. Instead of having fun making productive edits, I had to spend the evening trying to explain to you what the policy states, and you spent the evening with your fingers in your ears like a child. Even now, you want to keep arguing that someone is automatically notable simply because they died. You blatantly failed WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:FINDSOURCESFORME, WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE, WP:NPA, WP:NPA2, incorrectly tried to use WP:NOBLANK as an excuse not to revert non-notable content (which, empty sections CAN and WILL be deleted, because they look bad and are redundant) or WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to trump any other policy you disagree with, you blatantly failed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS multiple times (damn near every comment), as well as several other policies and guidelines. You chose to WP:WIKILAWYER to get your way, WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over, clearly not even reading the WP shortcuts that you were throwing at me. You have still failed to provide any context as to how the person is notable enough for inclusion. After 23 months and 7,000 edits, you should have a WP:CLUE, but you choose to be tendentious and argumentative instead. Instead of looking for more information about the person, to see if they pass WP:GNG, or if there is ANY information out there other than a couple brief mentions that he died, you wanted to just keep tilting at that same WP:WINDMILL. There is a big difference between "we have a different understanding of the policies", and "I don't care what the policy says" (which clearly, was your attitude, and still is). Even your last comment here, you continue to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. WP:GETOVERIT, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and move on, or find something noteworthy the person did to have them included. When people try to help a less experienced editor see the error of their ways, and gets shit on like I did last night, it makes us less apt to want to help you be a better editor. It makes us say "well, that person clearly is WP:NOTHERE to help", no matter how long you have been here or how many edits you have made (especially considering how many were as useless as adding empty sections to articles). You should have gotten the clue after your tban, but you continue wanting to shit on anyone who disagrees with you, no matter what P&G states. There is no WP:WIN or lose here, everything is done on WP:CONSENSUS to improve the 'pedia. If you truly want to die on this hill, I would suggest your next action be DR, where you can have multiple editors tell you that just because someone died and was briefly mentioned in an article about someone else does not make them notable enough for inclusion in a section of "notable people", because I'm over it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok after I’ve posted on your talk [3] in an attempt to make peace, you now come here to make the above comment. Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either. Further, you are now citing more than twenty WP shortcuts making all kinds of interesting claims against me. I think that’s enough, and I really hope people can cool down a bit. After all it’s just Wikipedia.

I’m not going to reply to those twenty claims one by one. That’s meaningless. There’s one thing really needs clarifying though. You linked to our notability guideline, in which it stated at the very beginning that,

The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.

It’s not about “how the person is notable enough for inclusion” as you said, it’s about whether the topic may have its own article, which is not what we have been discussing mainly here. I hope people can stop misinterpreting (or spreading misinterpretation) about our policies. Also, please be civil and stop using words like “sh*t *n” on my talk page. They are not welcome.

P.S. I have told you many times that the person didn’t just die. He’s a photojournalist died from bomb attack during his reporting mission. In this source for example, he’s described as “The Press Martyr of Kashmir”. There’s significant coverage of the person by the source, unlike someone’s father or grandmother who just died from their illnesses which won’t be reported by anyone. I hope people can do some basic research, or at least read the sources provided, before making their comments. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the concern you expressed in your edit summary, please see

• Agence France-Presse#Prizes and awards

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jannatulbaqi, please kindly note that according to our talk page guidelines, if you edit your post after it’s being posted and after someone has already replied to it, it is best to indicate any changes you’ve made (with underline or striking out for example) and sign your post again with the latest time stamp.

As for your concern that “I don't think it is needed there. Because it was given to ANI founder Prem Prakash and not to ANI.”, as I’ve said above, the AFP page also have a similar section, in which the awards were given to people but not the organisation. I would appreciate if you can self-revert. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.