User talk:Buddhobuddha

Welcome!

Hello, Buddhobuddha, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as KumarShanthi, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of KumarShanthi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on KumarShanthi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hello Buddhobuddha. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Buddhobuddha. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Buddhobuddha|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello ChildrenWillListen. Thank you for raising your concerns about my edits to the "Azmet Jah" article and for your vigilance in upholding Wikipedia's policies on paid editing (WP:PAID) and biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the encyclopedia's integrity and neutrality. It's editors like you who help ensure Wikipedia remains a reliable resource. I assume your revert to a previous version was made in good faith to protect the article.

To address your query directly: I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits, nor do I have any financial stake in promoting Azmet Jah or any other individual or entity associated with this topic. I have no affiliation with Azmet Jah, his challengers, or any related parties, and I am not employed or compensated by any person, group, company, or organization to edit this article. My contributions are entirely voluntary and made in good faith (WP:AGF), driven by a desire to improve the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and neutrality of the article in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If you believe I have a conflict of interest beyond this, I am happy to discuss further details on the talk page.

Your comment suggests that my edits may reflect paid advocacy. I respectfully disagree, as my updated article does not promote any particular party. Instead, it provides a balanced and detailed account of Azmet Jah’s life, his claim to the titular Nizam title, and the ongoing succession disputes involving multiple parties, including Nawab Alexander Azam Jah, Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan, Nawab Najaf Ali Khan, and the Majlis-E-Sahebzadagan Society. I understand how the detailed nature of the edits could raise a flag. However, these disputes are presented neutrally, with each claimant’s perspective supported by reliable sources, such as The Hindu, The Times of India, The Siasat Daily, and Hindustan Times. The article avoids taking a stance on who the “legitimate” successor is, emphasizing the lack of legal recognition for any Nizam title and the symbolic nature of the claims. There is no laudatory or promotional phrasing, such as exaggerated praise or unsourced claims of superiority for any party, and all claims are directly tied to reliable sources without speculative interpretations or editorial bias. For reference, here is a diff comparing my version (v2) to the reverted version (v1): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azmet_Jah&diff=1305667358&oldid=1301012995. This is my first major update to this article, though I've had my account for some time.

I propose we use my revised version as a starting point for discussion, as it significantly improves sourcing, neutrality, and comprehensiveness in line with Wikipedia’s policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS). However, I’m open to refining it further based on community feedback. I’ve posted a diff link above to highlight key changes and welcome specific suggestions to address any concerns, ensuring a balanced and verifiable article.

Below, I outline the key reasons why my version is superior and better serves Wikipedia’s readers (particularly under WP:BLP, by providing balanced context to avoid undue harm to any living persons involved):

- Adheres to Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV): My version presents multiple viewpoints on Azmet Jah's claim to the Nizamate, detailing challenges from various family members and societies with equal weight and a neutral tone. It gives proportionate space to all major challengers (e.g., their arguments, lawsuits, press releases, and alternative coronations), ensuring the article does not "take sides" or present one claim as the default. In contrast, the current version lacks depth in discussing these disputes, mentioning only the Majlis-E-Sahebzadagan Society’s objection without detailing other claimants or legal complexities, which may leave readers with an incomplete understanding.

- Comprehensive and Balanced: It provides a significantly more thorough account of the complex disputes and historical context. The previous version offered briefer coverage, potentially downplaying the disputes and presenting a more singular narrative.

- Improved Sourcing: My version uses a broader range of diverse, independent, and reliable sources to address gaps in the previous version, per WP:V. Sources cover all major claims without cherry-picking to favour any party.

The article is structured around Azmet Jah’s life and the succession dispute, with challengers appearing only in relevant sections, indicating they are not the primary focus. There is no undue emphasis on any challenger’s achievements or personal life outside the dispute context.

That said, I acknowledge your potential concerns about MOS:PEACOCK that could be seen as overly promotional if not directly tied to the disputes. To address this, I will revise my version promptly to tone down or remove such language, ensuring a more focused, neutral tone. I am always open to collaboration and welcome your input on these refinements. If you have specific sections you believe are problematic, please let me know. I am happy to work with you to ensure the article is as neutral and accurate as possible.

In discussing this, let's focus on the article's content per WP:TALK and WP:FOC. Reverting valuable edits can discourage constructive contributions and harm the encyclopedia by losing positive additions that should be preserved (WP:ONLYREVERT). If an edit adds correct and useful information but has issues for other reasons, please consider fixing it directly or adding a clean-up tag instead (WP:PARTR, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR).

I am working to enhance all Nizam-related articles, which are often incomplete or one-sided. This effort includes editing multiple related articles to improve coverage where I found gaps. Additionally, I am working to improve coverage of rival claimant Raunaq Yar Khan. My goal is to create neutral, well-sourced content for all Nizam-related articles. If anyone from WikiProject India or other neutral editors can review the sources and advise which national sources would strengthen the article, I welcome that help.

Thank you again for your dedication to Wikipedia. I look forward to your response and to collaborating further to refine the article for the benefit of readers.

Buddhobuddha (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Buddhobuddha: Please do not use ChatGPT or other LLM tools to edit Wikipedia or write replies for you. We would like to hear you, not a chatbot. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen how do you know? HQIQ (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Bullet points with bolded entries, citing a lot of unrelated policies, statements like I look forward to your response and to collaborating further to refine the article for the benefit of readers. The more you spend time here, the easier it would be to identify LLM output. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

To confirm again: no compensation, no affiliations, all voluntary. If that's settled, maybe we can move on? I have added a short disclosure to my talkpage.

I'm open to any specific feedback on the article content itself, but otherwise, I'd like to get back to improving it based on the sources. Buddhobuddha (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi ChildrenWillListen. Could you explain which edits looked promotional? I want to understand so I can avoid the appearance of COI in the future. Buddhobuddha (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Buddhobuddha, I see you had already been warned about AI use above. If it continues, I'll block your account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to own the rights to File:Raunaq Yar Khan in 2023.jpg? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raunaq Yar Khan

The article Raunaq Yar Khan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). There is little to no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:GNG). Most references are routine mentions, press releases, or non-independent material. Article reads promotional (WP:PROMO), gives undue focus to ancestry rather than the subject (WP:UNDUE), and contains contested claims about succession not supported by high-quality sources (WP:BLP).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

DatBot. I have already provided a detailed response regarding my respectful disagreement with the deletion process. You can find my comments and reasoning on the article's talk page. Buddhobuddha (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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 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.

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.

You have recently made edits 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. This is a standard message to inform you that 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 is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Buddhobuddha, please note that in most cases where someone removes article content from a biography of a living person while providing a reason for the removal, WP:BLPRESTORE prohibits restoring the content without modification or consensus on the talk page. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ToBeFree. I did those reverts because the specific content being removed by the IP user is a paragraph that is fundamental to the article's compliance with NPOV and BLP. The paragraph in question clarifies that the 'Nizam' title is symbolic and has not been officially recognized by the country since 1971. Without this crucial context, the lead would be highly misleading, presenting a symbolic claimant as if he holds an official, state-recognized position. Its removal creates a serious neutrality and verifiability issue by misrepresenting the subject's actual status.

The IP user just called it “irrelevant,” gave no policy reason, and kept deleting. I reverted to protect the article's core neutrality while directing the IP editor to the talk page for a proper consensus discussion, as you can see in the Edit summary. I have opened a detailed section on the article's talk page for consensus, as you advised. Buddhobuddha (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Buddhobuddha, thank you very much for the clarification and for creating the discussion section. I did notice the nature of the disputed paragraph, so I didn't remove it; I did remove the disputed parameter from the infobox though. In general, if there's something in the article that would be non-neutral without a clarification, and that clarification is disputed, then it should be fine to remove the clarified content as well while the discussion is ongoing. For example, if an article contains the term "mayor of xyz" and the clarification "xyz doesn't exist", and someone disputes the latter, then both should probably be removed until a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had a look and what you wrote on the article's talk page is clearly AI-generated. And your message here too.

Please do your own research and write in your own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ToBeFree. You were right about me using AI and I need to apologise and explain myself. I am a new editor. Even though my account is old, about 7 years, I was only using it for syncing my watchlist to read between phone and desktop.

A few months back I had written my first article and it read like a resume and was nominated for speedy deletion. The reviewer who nominated for deletion also mentioned to read all the Wikipedia rules and that was the first time I really started reading them. I took the feedback seriously.

After a few months, I started looking for a new subject for an article and found a person who was notable. Did my research, found all relevant sources about him. To avoid making the same mistake, I used AI again to draft the first version of the article mainly to get the encyclopedia tone right. But this created a whole set of problems. More policy violation. GNG, PROMO, UNDUE, FRINGE, COI and what not???? It was again nominated for deletion citing a lot of policy violation. And I had only 7 days to save the article. I found it impossible to understand all these policies within 7 days. Then I used AI again to answer on the talk pages so that I may sound “policy-smart.”

That was a huge mistake and made things more worse. It won’t happen again.

After seeing all the complaints and feedback, I realised AI text was the problem with the main article. I completely redrafted the article removing all the AI fluff focussing on the neutrality of the disputed claims. It’s short, plainly worded, and only says what the newspapers say: the title is symbolic, abolished in 1971, and two cousins are arguing over who can use it. The version which I am trying to restore is the neutral human written version. This version.

Now the problem is that I feel I am being judged for my past mistakes (which is fair) and no one seems to be reading the article itself or checking the sources to see if the article has merit. Most are only worried about policy violations without looking at the content of the article itself.

The reverted version of the article doesn't mention anything about the disputed claims. The current version makes people wonder why do we need an article about this person when all his notability parts are removed.

I was just trying to contribute a good neutral article. Not here for politics or edit wars. How do I get people to read this version of the article and judge it fairly? Any guidance? Buddhobuddha (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Buddhobuddha, thank you very much for the honesty and the detailed explanations.

Sadly, AI won't be much of a help here. Neither in discussions nor in writing or improving the article. AI regularly fails at all of this; please don't try. At very least not in a biography of a living person.

But I'm happy to see that you have found a link to your revision that you can easily share on the article's talk page. And then you can invite the other users using {{Please see}} on their talk pages. The essay WP:DISCFAIL is just an essay and not a policy or guideline, but it's the best essay I've ever seen. It explains how to proceed when noone else seems to be willing to discuss.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanx. Buddhobuddha (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Afghanistan is part of west Asia. HQIQ (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi HQIQ, they were editing about a person from Hyderabad, so WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/IPA seem relevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.