User talk:Tanhasahu

Don't worry about making an article perfect. Just make it better.

February 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Josh Cahill. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

The edits you reverted are currently being discussed on the article talk page, and I would love it if you would participate in the discussion and help form WP:CON ConcurrentState (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more than 90% of your edits doesn't add any value to the platform and are connected with Josh Cahill and editors who made edits on Josh's page. Look at your edits before making any comments. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly urge you refrain from editing BLPs[edit]

I am deeply concerned that you are not yet read to edit BLPs. As I remarked BLPN, WP:DAILYMAIL is explicitly not an RS. In fact it's a deprecated source and so there is almost no where on the English Wikipedia where it can be used. And this is especially the case on BLPs. Likewise the WP:BUSINESSINSIDER has unclear reliability and so at best should be used with caution on BLPs and frankly should probably never be used as the sole source of anything. For BLPs we want good sources not crappy ones.

I can understand new editors might be unfamiliar with our reliable sources requirements, however even if you are new, it's your responsibility to learn especially if you are going to edit BLPs since it matters a great deal. More significantly though, if you are new and so unfamiliar with our RS requirements, you really should be making highly flawed bold pronouncements like "Business Insider, BBC, Daily Mail all are RS, and you can't just go and remove information as you want" which are so clearly wrong.

Most concerning of all though is that you made such a silly pronouncement after another editor had not only already told you that the Daily Mail is deprecated but linked to the relevant guideline like I had which describes this and links to the community discussions that lead to it being deprecated. You replied to an editor informing you as much with such a pronouncement [1].

All this being the case, you IMO really have a lot to learn before you go anywhere near BLPs. This includes learning what's an RS on wikipedia, but also making sure you read what others tell you. As WP:BLP explains edits you make concerning living persons can have significant consequences for them, so it's very important we get such edits right hence why it's especially important here you do not make such serious mistakes.

There's nothing wrong with staying away from edits and articles where you could cause such harm while you learn the basics of editing here. Note that BLPs are a contentious topic area, I'll give you a template telling you what this means after this but basically we expect all editors editing such topics to take extra special care which doesn't seem to have been shown by your mistakes

Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne, I understand as a newcomer I need to read more about editing BLP articles so I avoid editing BLP editing. You can clearly see it in my editing history too.

I came across Josh's Wikipedia page through a random article section and found that the well-cited information has been removed multiple times and lots of IP and fresh accounts engaging in the reverting war. So, I thought to put that information back as Wikipedia editors suggest to not remove well-cited and reliable sources of information without any valid reason. Even, I have seen such things on organization pages too so with good faith I reverted the edits and made the first edit to Josh's page.

After a few hours, I got a notification and talk page message that my edits had been reverted and warned for disruptive edits. The message was left by a totally newcomer Wikipedia editor who made under 50 edits with just 5 days of account history.

After that, I went through the discussion and found something fishy about how a newcomer can know all Wikipedia terms, policies, rules, and more interestingly all of his edits were connected to Josh's page. That smells like COI to defame some notable people with their edits.

Maybe before this account, he had multiple accounts in the past and was paid by people who wanted to defame people. Lots of questions about that account. You need to dig deep to find out.

If we just reach any opinion without any proper investigation then good faith editors will interest to edit Wikipedia pages and the platform will lose the trust of readers. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanhasahu. Thank you. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarmaniLink For your kind information, I am not associated with any of the listed accounts. I just made edits with good faith to make Wikipedia a better place. When I made first edit to the Josh Cahill was a good faith edit based on the information and facts but it got reverted and got a message to participate on the talk page. So, I made statement there. If you check ConcurrentState user, more than 90% of the account edits were made on the pages, talk pages related to Josh Cahill. I can smell something fishy with that account but you're wasting your time here. There is something cooking behind the scene like users doing IP edits to vandalise the page and then the Concurrentstate reverting those edits to show his good faith with reverting the edits. But, behind this he removing the well sourced content and adding false content. At the same time, the editor using Aerotime Youtube video as reference and at the same time he questioning Aerotime reliability. And it's not the first time Aerotime represented the awards. You must check this user before reaching to any verdict. Tanhasahu (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily mail and business insider are not "well sourced content" DarmaniLink (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why Wikipedia editors use Business Insider as citation source on most of the pages? I understand there paid articles on Business Insider too but most of their articles are not the paid story and in the case of Josh Cahill page, can you tell me that citated article was organic of paid? And how a user can remove information citated from BBC? Tanhasahu (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bellesa, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. It's not uncommon for leads to not have citations because they summarize the rest of the article that does have citations, also if you have issues with a source, consider adding a rs? tag instead of removing it, and consider discussing big changes on the article talk page for GA-level article as those have often already been extensively checked for RS and citations. ConcurrentState (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

25 February 2024 - Warning [2] for disruptive editing on Josh Cahill
05:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) - Warning[3] for disruptive editing on Bellesa - Consider familiarizing yourself with MOS:LEAD, WP:CITE and WP:RS

ConcurrentState (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Tanhasahu. Thank you for your work on Dhandhan. MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

please add a ref for the population from the official indian census site

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Aleem[edit]

Hello, just wondering as to why you removed the PROD tag I placed on Yussuf Aleem because I don't understand your edit summary "Somehow notability is inherited". Thanks. Golem08 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]