User talk:Bharatwiki Socrates

Thank you

Many thanks for your encouragement. I am sorry for responding rather late. I was a bit unwell and therefore away Bharatpedia for some time. - Kamal Guha (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2024 (IST)

Hi Kamal, No need to apologize! I hope you feel better soon. Health of the well-being is the top priority. Thanks for all your efforts on Bharatpedia –I appreciate it. Take care and looking forward to your return! 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 15:21, 13 January 2024 (IST)

Request for review: Draft:Sanjay Ghare

Hi,

Hope you're doing well. I have a draft biography at Draft:Sanjay Ghare that has been in the AfC queue for over three weeks. It was initially reviewed and declined on 16 July 2026 for insufficient independent sourcing, which I addressed in a full rewrite on 17 July. It has been pending re-review since.

When you have some time, would you be able to take a look? I've tried to address the notability concerns with independent editorial coverage.

Current sourcing:

• YourStory (2020 profile of the company and founder)
• PhocusWire (acquisition coverage, August 2023)
• Startup Pedia (biographical profile)
• Get Latka (business coverage)
• World Travel Tech Awards (industry recognition)
• Forbes editorial column (2025)

The subject is the co-founder and CEO of Vervotech, a Pune-based travel technology company acquired by Constellation Software in 2023.

I understand reviewers are volunteers and appreciate the time you take on this. Happy to make any further improvements if the sourcing still falls short.

Thanks, ~~~~ Prashant1 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2026 (IST)

Your draft needs more reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the person. Please provide three additional sources with significant coverage, and I will review your draft. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 22:29, 11 October 2026 (IST)

I have reviewed some of your sources. A few appear to be non-existent, while others are misquoted or fail to provide significant coverage of the person.

The foundation of your article is therefore weak. You need to focus on replacing these unreliable or irrelevant sources with reliable ones that provide substantial coverage of the subject. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 22:34, 11 October 2026 (IST)

Thank You for Rollback rights

I agree with the proposed three-month trial period. Thank you for considering the request and offering this opportunity. I will make sure to use the rollback tool responsibly, primarily for clear vandalism, and avoid using it in content disputes or edit wars. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 22:32, 27 September 2026 (IST)

@Editorial Oversight, most welcome! If you ever find yourself unsure about anything, feel free to reach out to me or any other active admin. You have been doing great constructive work, and I'm really impressed with your contributions. I hope you stick around and join us in building this new encyclopedia! 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 22:46, 27 September 2026 (IST)

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. I appreciate your support and will continue contributing constructively to Bharatpedia. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 22:54, 27 September 2026 (IST)

Please check

Hello, Bharatwiki Socrates. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ajay Kumar (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2026 (IST)

Speedy deletion backlog

Hello Bharatwiki Socrates: There is currently a speedy deletion backlog of 37 pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Administrators are requested to review and process the candidates when time permits.

Thank you for your help keeping the project tidy. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2026 (IST)

Thanks @WikiDwarf for this headup. I have cleared all the csd backlog:

• Deleted 156 csd nominated pages (spam, self-promotional bios, nonsense, hoax content)
• Kept 8 pages in namespace as stub after removing CSD tags and improving content (Anna Dravidar Kazhagam, Parasadi Estate, Oxygen Concentrator, Ladia, List of Hindi films of 1913/1914)
• Completed 2 csd nominated incomplete articles and moved to namespace: (Arun Bhimrao Harolikar and Wounded in action)
• Your sub-pages (common.js, sandbox) were left untouched

Regards. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 10:58, 17 October 2026 (IST)

May i know if there are more articles which are kept of completed? I don't get notifications for them but only for deletion

why are sub-pages not deleted when it was requested by user? Dokania😎(📩) 14:02, 17 October 2026 (IST)

You have nominated Draft:Arun Bhimrao Harolikar and Draft:Wounded in action for speedy deletion. But I thought instead of speedy deletion, they can be kept as “Wounded in action” is a term used extensively in war-related articles, and Arun Bhimrao Harolikar is notable. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 14:19, 17 October 2026 (IST)

Yes, both are already mentioned by you. I am asking about others which aren't mentioned here. Dokania😎(📩) 15:23, 17 October 2026 (IST)

@Dokania, mention the subpage you're talking about...Did I missed something? 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 15:27, 17 October 2026 (IST)

I am asking if there are others apart from 8 kept pages and 2 completed articles which were moved by you? Dokania😎(📩) 15:30, 17 October 2026 (IST)

Please check my contribution and move log for this. I don't remember the exact details, as there was a huge backlog. I reviewed the drafts as quickly as possible, but the process still took considerable time. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 15:34, 17 October 2026 (IST)

+I'm quite sure there wasn't anything beyond that. I've mentioned everything I can recall. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 15:36, 17 October 2026 (IST)

• This is an automated notice. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, please contact the script operator.

Isha Malviya

Check Again Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 14:27, 31 October 2026 (IST)

@WikiDwarf you also check Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 00:39, 1 November 2026 (IST)

I have checked the page again. Since the earlier decline, the same IPv6 range repeated the infobox image change on 31 October; Editorial Oversight reverted it, and then an IP from a different range undid that revert and restored the change. With the disruption now coming from more than one range, I have semi-protected the page for one week and restored the last clean version. If it resumes after the protection expires, the protection can be extended. Thank you for keeping an eye on the page. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 04:24, 1 November 2026 (IST)

Hello @Bharatwiki Socrates, I would like to bring the recent editing activity of User:Get lost to your attention. The user has returned after a one-month block, and similar disruptive editing has reportedly resumed. The account previously vandalised the Narendra Modi article. I request that an administrator review the user's recent contributions and take appropriate hard action if further vandalism is confirmed. Please investigate this matter and consider suitable administrative measures to prevent further disruption. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 08:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Blocked as BP:NOTHERE. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 08:19, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I would like to bring @Dokania recent behaviour and editing activities to the attention of the administrators. There appear to be repeated disagreements over Bharatpedia's editing processes and guidelines. For example, please review the discussions at User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, where the user has disputed the process and reverted edits without adequately addressing the concerns raised. The user also appears to be tagging articles about potentially notable subjects as non-notable without sufficient consideration. In addition, there have been instances of drafts being nominated for speedy deletion without clear justification. The user seems to believe that because I am not an administrator, I cannot determine whether an edit or action is inappropriate. However, following Bharatpedia's guidelines and raising concerns about improper actions should be everyone's responsibility, regardless of user rights. I request that an administrator review these activities and remind the user to read and follow Bharatpedias policies and guidelines before reverting edits, applying deletion tags or taking administrative-style actions. I have tried to address these concerns directly, but the issue remains unresolved. I hope the administrators can intervene before this behaviour causes further disruption and makes Bharatpedia's editing environment difficult for other contributors. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 08:45, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I am taking this to Bharatpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where it belongs Dokania😎(📩) 08:59, 4 November 2026 (IST)

You still have a lot of Bharatpedia guidelines to read and editing processes to understand. This was not an edit war; rather, your own behaviour showed a lack of understanding of how the editing process works. For now, I suggest that you focus on creating articles and avoid getting involved in administrative or editorial disputes until you have a proper understanding of Bharatpedia's policies, guidelines and editing procedures. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 09:10, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Also, @Dokania, this user moved the deleted article Abhijit Ashok Paul back to the main namespace after it had already been deleted. Please review this action and take appropriate steps. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 09:16, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Deleted the page as per earlier consensus at Bharatpedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Ashok Paul. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 09:19, 4 November 2026 (IST)

We need a closure template for AfD discussions on Bharatpedia. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 09:25, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Done. The closure templates for AfD discussions are ready. To close a discussion, place {{subst:Afd top|Result:______. ~~~~}} at the very top of the discussion page and {{subst:Afd bottom}} at the very bottom; the discussion text in between stays untouched. The pair already existed from an old import, but it had no documentation and only the "Afd" spelling worked. The result line of Template:Afd top has been standardised, both templates now carry full documentation (usage, standard results, and the steps after closing, including removing the discussion from its deletion sorting list), and Template:AfD top and Template:AfD bottom redirects have been created so both spellings work. A matching pair for closing reports on the edit warring noticeboard, Template:Edit warring top and Template:Edit warring bottom, has been created as well. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 12:13, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Perfect... nice work(: Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 12:25, 4 November 2026 (IST)

@Editorial Oversight, You should issue the appropriate Level 1 warning for an initial violation. If the user repeats the violation within the same month, escalate the warnings progressively to Level 2, Level 3 and finally Level 4. Level 4 should serve as the final warning. Any further violation after a Level 4 warning make the user eligible for an immediate block.

The warning level should reset at the beginning of the following month. However, previous warnings and blocks should remain in the user's contribution history so administrators can identify patterns of repeated misconduct. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 08:59, 4 November 2026 (IST)

This user had already received multiple warnings, including a final warning, but did not respond or acknowledge them and continued repeating the same behaviour. This suggests a serious disregard for Bharatpedia's policies. I agree that the user is NOTHERE, and an indefinite block may be appropriate to prevent further disruption. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 09:08, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I just wanted to remind you that I have also applied for AFC Reviewer. I have already mentioned it to WikiDwarf, but thought I should remind you as well. Please have a look at my application whenever you get a chance. Thank you! Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 19:36, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Admin generally check recent edits, so there is little chance that WikiDwarf would have missed your request or even me. I have seen your request. I was just occupied with other issues. Any admin will get back to you regarding your request in due course. They may ask you questions, assign you a task, or review your contributions. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 19:44, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I understand that you were occupied with other matters and I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge my request. Regarding my recent contributions, I believe you are already familiar with my work. I have helped implement the AfD process and created pages such as Bharatpedia:Introduction to deletion process. Alongside this, I have been creating original articles rather than simply copying and pasting content. I have also been keeping an eye on vandalism affecting articles such as Isha Malviya and Narendra Modi, and reporting disruptive editors whenever necessary. I am actively trying to contribute to Bharatpedia in different areas, not just article creation. I will wait for the administrators' feedback and am happy to answer questions or undertake any task as part of the review. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 19:54, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Appreciation for Your Guidance

Perhaps I went a little too far with my words, and I apologise for that. However, my intention was never to create a personal dispute. I was only trying to protect Bharatpedia from unnecessary conflicts and help bring the workflow back on track. I appreciate your decision and the way you explained everything. Your points were fair and helpful. I will take this lesson with me and remember it for the rest of my time on Bharatpedia. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 11:39, 4 November 2026 (IST)

About BP:AN/EW

1. I don't find your assessment of the case fair. It was more of a diplomatic balancing rather than a fair judgement. user:Editorial Oversight hadn't even been asked to apologise to me for those remarks. Though I find that he apologized to you.
2. If G2 is removed repeatedly what am I supposed to do? I still want that G2 request to be processed properly.
3. If he keeps removing warnings from his talk page, Isn't it removal of evidence. How would anyone else know that he has been already warned?
4. What was his qualification or need to remove requests from the bot? The bot only processed 4 out of 13 references. That's why I entered it again. I still want the bot to process it again and skip it if it can't process more refs but reverting is just disruptive editing.

Dokania😎(📩) 12:08, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I noticed that you applied for adminship a few days ago, but your request was declined by the community. An administrator's role is not to block users without proper reasons but to make fair and neutral decisions based on policies and evidence. I believe @Bharatwiki Socrates have handled this situation correctly, and I 100% support hes decision. Good job, Admin! Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 12:37, 4 November 2026 (IST)

@Dokania, I have read all four points. The case is closed and I am not reopening it, but each point deserves a direct answer.
On fairness and the apology. The findings balanced nothing. They state in writing that Editorial Oversight crossed the three-revert line on one page and that his personal remarks were not acceptable, and he stands formally cautioned for both. The sanction was measured because your own conduct was part of the same cycle. An administrator cannot order one editor to apologise to another; that is a personal matter. For the record, he has since apologised on this very page for going too far with his words.
On the G2 tag. I have looked at Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres myself. It is a genuine, if small, draft with an infobox and references, not a test page, so the G2 criterion does not apply and the tag will not be restored. That is the request processed: a tag being declined is also a decision. If you believe the subject is not notable, the route is a draft deletion discussion (Miscellany for Deletion--MfD), not a speedy tag that does not fit the page.
On removing warnings. Removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed and is treated as the editor having read them. Nothing is erased by it: every warning remains permanently in the page history and in its diffs, which is exactly what administrators check, and your own report quoted those diffs. No evidence is lost.
On the bot requests page. The request had already been processed by the bot and was listed in the completed section. If you believed the archiving was incomplete, the way to raise it was a fresh note saying what was left, not re-adding the same request and reverting its removal three times. Any editor may tidy that queue, and the removals carried their reasons in the edit summaries.
The direction at the end of the case applies to both of you: disengage from each other completely. Please follow it. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 12:38, 4 November 2026 (IST)

1. Admin can always ask but not order the apology. Anyways it doesn't matter. Unheartly apology means nothing to me. So let's excuse that.
2. Very well. I have raised an XFD for it. The draft doesn't have any reference. It was created by temporary user and lacks any meaningful content.
3. Acceptable though accountability would be harder.
4. What do you mean by fresh note? I specified in edit summary that i had added new refs since my first request of the article.

Dokania😎(📩) 12:59, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Also, I think such remarks should be striken out, like this. Dokania😎(📩) 13:05, 4 November 2026 (IST)

By “fresh note,” I mean adding a completely new request. If you’ve added a new reference, then reverting is not a solution, reverting clearly erases the record of the bot’s work as well. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 13:25, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I had added a completely new request (fresh note, right?). It was then reverted by him Dokania😎(📩) 13:58, 4 November 2026 (IST)

You are right about one narrow thing, and it changes nothing. Yes, the entry you added at 19:28 on 3 November was a new line and not an undo; nobody has disputed that. But look at what that line was: the identical request, "* Prabhakar Joshi", for an article the bot had processed the same day at 17:27, with its completed entry ("4 change(s)") still sitting in the completed section of the same page. The line itself stated no reason at all. Your reason, a rescan for new references, existed only in your edit summary, which is not part of the request and is not what a reader of the queue sees. Editorial Oversight read it as a duplicate because, on the face of the page, that is exactly what it was.
And the finding you are arguing against was never about that entry. It was about what you did next: undoing an explained removal three times instead of saying one sentence anywhere, here or on his talk page: "I have re-added it because new references need a rescan." One sentence would have ended it. That part of the decision stands exactly as written.
The practical point is easily settled. If Prabhakar Joshi still has references left to fix, add the request once more and write the reason in the request itself, for example "rescan: references remain after the 3 November run". A request that explains itself will not be removed as a duplicate, and it will be processed in the normal course.
This is my last word on this case on this page. The report is closed, the findings stand, and re-arguing them further will not produce a different answer. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 14:20, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I do not know why any editor needs to revert my request to the bot, if the bot is capable of simply skipping it. Arguing that it only existed in edit summary isn't correct. Anyone will read the edit summary before reverting "4 times". Anyways I am adding it again. If no-one has any issue. Dokania😎(📩) 14:34, 4 November 2026 (IST)

November 2026

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Bharatpedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dokania😎(📩) 20:41, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Shouldn't they be in drafts or cite atleast one source to be stubs? Dokania😎(📩) 20:42, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Dokania, you have issued me a level 2 warning for adding or changing content without a source. Two questions arise from this:

• 1. Which edit are you referring to? Your warning names no article and gives no diff, and the template's article parameter was left blank, so the warning does not identify any edit of mine at all.
• 2. Why has this been issued directly at level 2? There is no level 1 warning on this talk page, and warnings in this series start at level 1 and escalate when the similar conduct is repeated after the previous warning.

If you failed to failed to justify your warn, a misuse of warn template warn is on the way to be issued on your talkpage. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 21:12, 4 November 2026 (IST)

I wanted to use the general note template but it's preview doesn't suit at all. It should be rewritten for being usable as it says that your material is removed which is not the case.

It's not about a single article. You have created many articles today which have no citations at all as I had seen on Special:Newpagesfeed Dokania😎(📩) 21:19, 4 November 2026 (IST)

@Dokania, glad you explained, but your comment doesn't hold justification for your warn.

• On the level: you have now confirmed that you skipped level 1 only because you did not like its wording, as it speaks of material being removed. A warning level is not chosen by which template text reads better, it records how many times the editor has already been warned about the same conduct. If no warning template fits a situation, the course is a plain note in your own words, not a level 2 warning on a first approach.
• On the articles: asked twice, you still have not named one. "Many articles" seen on the new pages feed is not an identification, and that feed lists every editor's new pages, not only mine. For the record, the pages I created today are 34 short articles and 5 redirects, made to clear the red links in Bharatpedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Each article is only a basic definition of its subject, such as what a hospital or a blockchain is, and each one is marked with {{stub}}. A stub is a short starter article in the mainspace by definition, and creating stub is not adding unsourced material to an article or changing existing content.

If you say a definition in any of these pages is wrong or needs a source, name the page and the statement and it will be dealt with. Until then, this warning stands unjustified in both its level and its basis. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 21:39, 4 November 2026 (IST)

@Dokania, the novice inexperience you have demonstrated here is quite hilarious to me. If we start issuing warnings for creating stubs, there would hardly be any encyclopaedia left today. A stub changes into well sourced large article by time as volunteer contribute. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 21:57, 4 November 2026 (IST)

1. Level of warnings don't pertain to no. of violations. A level 2 warning can be issued if it is violated multiple times. (created multiple articles). Though I wanted to use general note as you are more experienced.
2. As far as I know BP:V mandates verifiability and it must have atleast one source even if it's a stub.

@user:WikiDwarf Am I correct? So many stubs with no citation at all is acceptable?? Dokania😎(📩) 22:01, 4 November 2026 (IST)

You have claimed above, "As far as I know BP:V mandates verifiability and it must have atleast one source even if it's a stub.", your claim is completely inaccurate, BP:V doesn't make such statement. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 22:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)

BP:V says All material in Bharatpedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. Dokania😎(📩) 22:11, 4 November 2026 (IST)

So, you are misinterpreting. I haven't added anything that raises verifiability concerns; they were simply stub articles containing the most basic and unquestionable information. Yes, stubs do not necessarily require citations from the very beginning, if the topic itself is notable, which is the case here. See Bharatpedia:Stub :"A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, and that is capable of expansion."

I'm building Hi-Bharatpedia from scratch, its not possible to create thousand of well sourced articles (without import), the best way is to create stubs so they get expanded in future by other volunteers. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 22:19, 4 November 2026 (IST)

See BP:RS The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception

Anyone can challenge your stubs and get it deleted if they lack any citations. If you want to make a stub give atleast one citation. Your thinking that stubs don't require citations is very wrong. I can create any article and call it stub and say that it doesn't require citation. No content is self-verified. Dokania😎(📩) 06:47, 5 November 2026 (IST)

the sentence you quote from BP:RS does not say what you are using it for. It says the verifiability policy applies strictly to all mainspace material, and the policy itself, BP:V, states what that requires: material must be verifiable, and an inline citation is required for quotations and for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. The opening summary of BP:RS says the same in so many words. Neither page says that every stub must carry a citation from its first revision.
Your challenge point is equally overstated. Material that is challenged and needs a source may be removed, and that is a remedy for a specific statement in a specific article. It is not a deletion of the article, and lack of citations is not a deletion criterion. In three replies you have still not challenged one statement in one article.
And nobody has claimed that content is self-verified, or that calling a page a stub exempts it. These pages are basic definitions of established subjects, created for the red links of a guideline. If any statement in any of them is challenged, it will be sourced or removed, like any other statement on the wiki. Name the page and the line, and that process can begin. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 07:49, 5 November 2026 (IST)

Why will I challenge? I don't have problems with the materials but the overlooking of citations.

I am just telling you that they should be in draft unless they pass BP:V. Filling mainspace with unsourced stubs degrade the quality of Bharatpedia. I believe now you are just arguing for the sake of it and there's no substance in such arguments.

@WikiDwarf I think you can decide on it at last. Dokania😎(📩) 08:46, 5 November 2026 (IST)

Dokania, I would like to clarify that creating stub articles with just one source, a few sources, or even without citations initially can be acceptable, provided the subject itself is notable.

The key consideration should be the notability of the subject, not simply the number of citations in the initial stub. For instance, if a subject already has an article in established encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Britannica, that is a good indication that it warrants encyclopaedic coverage. In such cases, I see no reason to immediately tag the stub for deletion simply because it lacks references. We can retain it and gradually expand it with additional details and reliable sources as more volunteers contribute.

On the other hand, if a subject has no coverage in other established encyclopaedias and we cannot find any reliable sources to establish its notability, then it would be reasonable to tag the article for deletion or move it to draft space for further development.

Since Bharatpedia is still in its development stage, I believe we should encourage content creation while maintaining basic notability standards. My suggestion is to cross-check the subject's notability before taking any action. If the subject is notable and the article can be developed, we should focus on expanding it with reliable sources rather than immediately tagging it for deletion or issuing warnings to the creator.

The objective should be to build and improve the encyclopaedia collaboratively, while ensuring that the subjects we cover are genuinely encyclopaedic. WikiDwarf (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2026 (IST)

If the consensus is thus. I can't say anything.

Though I still think atleast one source should be there. It doesn't take much time to add one single source. Articles without any sources degrade the quality of an encyclopaedia. Dokania😎(📩) 12:17, 5 November 2026 (IST)