User talk:FactCheckerBharath

Hello FactCheckerBharath! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Do not upload images from the internet unless you have explicit permission stating that they are free to use. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks noted FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to 2025 Karur crowd crush while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and stop restoring the edit once it has been reverted. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, noted thanks for your reminder on time. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have summarized and edited the content []. Please mention the person in the official statements made by them to ensure NPOV. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Your editing history at 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. That means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Instead of reverting edits, please stop editing the page and discuss on the talk page to create a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a Third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you break the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if it looks like you intend to continue reverting. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've disabled your ability to edit that page for 48 hours. You're well past 3RR and should not be editing that page to begin with. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it seems you don’t know what you’re doing. “Previous good version” isn’t a valid reason; you could have any number of biases that make you think the previous version was “good”. And Spoken or colloquial Tamil has many loanwords from other languages esp. English (i.e. லூசு) that Senthamizh/Formal Tamil does not have. Don’t know what was wrong with that; anyone who speaks Tamil knows this fact. --Plantman (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Also there’s no word “anaikkonda” in Tamil but there is ஆனைக்கொன்றான் which is properly transcribed as āṉaikkoṉṟāṉ. You seem to be reverting cluelessly without knowing what you’re actually doing. --Plantman (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Plantman, As an experienced autoconfirmed users like you must know about the Wikipedia policies. A core policy of Wikipedia is all your edit should substantiate with a source. Basically, your edit doesn't have one. And it's not good like you an experienced user writing your own words in an article without cite. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC) 

Fair enough, but you could’ve elaborated on that in your edit summary instead of just putting that it’s not a good version, which is very broad and doesn’t really explain anything.

Would this suffice for the whole Tamil-English thing? I couldn’t find any sources for ஆனைக்கொன்றான் so I guess that’s out. --Plantman (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, reliable sources anyways. --Plantman (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Anbarasan1523 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Much appreciated! FactCheckerBharath (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Anbarasan1523 (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Talk:2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Already, a talk page section is live for your edits in the article, including the ANI section. As mentioned above by you, you need to get context from the editors before the edit which you are doing currently. I'm regretful to say you are not getting any context, and continuing to edit is an edit war. I request you please do not change any paraments before the agreement. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anbarasan1523, Please do not do multiple edits in my takk-page for the same subject. It's difficult for me to track. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

As I have not received any feedback from you either on my talk-page or on article's talk-page, I believe your recent edit may have been made unintentionally. I have therefore restored the previous stable version.

If you believe the change to be kept or have any concerns and wish to discuss the content further, please feel free to explain your reasoning here or on the article’s talk page before re-implementing the edit, rather than proceeding directly to ANI. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding archive bot is a normal Wikipedia process in talk pages. Quoting from Help:Talk_pages#Advanced: On talk pages that generate significant amounts of discussion, old discussions are often archived to keep the size of the talk page at a manageable level. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed regarding user talk pages and stubs. However, articles like this should retain the full edit history and relevant information so that current and future editors can save time and refer to previous discussions and context. The article’s talk page is still at a manageable level. Therefore, limiting this article page is unnecessary. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The current size is over 68,000 bytes with 8 sections. Archiving is necessary as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving as it's difficult to read newer comments and takes longer to load. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Note with thanks. 68,000 bytes is equal to approximately 66 KB. In modern times, 66 KB and eight sections are relatively small. As we know, many articles have more than eight sections and exceed 66 KB as well. Therefore, archiving in this article is not required. May I also ask if you have any other concerns beyond the above? FactCheckerBharath (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines are different from articles, and archiving is only done on talk pages. It helps for easier navigation to new comments and quick loading. If you want to remove archive bot from talk page, reach consensus first through RfC instead of edit warring. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Please be informed that I was referring only to the talk pages. Neither I nor the other editors have experienced any difficulty navigating the page or accessing new comments, and the page is loading healthy only. Since you introduced the archive bot without consulting the editors, you will need to go through an RfC to implement the bot.

I hope the above meets your expectation and I request you to reverse your edit. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I won't reverse my edit because archiving bot is necessary, especially in election pages. See Talk:2024 Indian general election in which archive bot is active. And my final reply to you: "I realized that your prime intent is to restore the promotional content in 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. That's why you're keep bothering me over a simple edit to add archive bot. You've successfully made Wikipedia lost a valuable contributor". Anbarasan1523 (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I believe I have addressed all your queries, and keeping the archive bot is solely your decision. Once again, I request that you go through the RfC before introducing the bot. Many thanks for your responses. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jana Nayagan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)