User talk:Anoopspeaks

aranmanai 4[edit]

the last person who made the edit about the distribution of aranmanai 4 is true, (i watched the tamil versionc theatre print online and it did say that UFO Moviez is the distibution partner category) and for the hindi on, the hindi trailer was also released by reliance entertainment where it was shown that Baweja Studios and Karmic Films Distributed the film

Source:[1]

BengalMC (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BengalMC I reverted it because no sources were provided. It will take some time for me to gather sources and write about distribution. Additionally, there are no reliable sources available for UFO Moviez, and it is not mentioned on their website. Although we could write that it is credited in the picture, this claim would likely be challenged or removed by page patrollers. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stree 2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stree 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premature move[edit]

Hi, you recently closed the move discusion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X_(social_network)#Requested_move_24_May_2024 - The discussion didn't come to any clear consensus yet so the close was premature and should be reverted --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky Most of the participants favored moving the article, and from my observation, the participants expressed their opinions. I don't think it's a premature move because it's a continuation of previous discussions, has completed its minimum discussion period, and has been stale for some time. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second FMSky here and request a bit further clarification on the closing rationale you used here (noting also that I was involved in the discussion). I'm counting 29 comments supporting and 20 opposing the move, which doesn't strike me as a clear consensus to move even before policy considerations are taken into account. I'm not saying the closure is wrong, but it's definitely contentious enough to deserve more of an explanation than just "per discussion". Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylnuge Sorry for the short description; I felt it was not necessary to write an essay stating that X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter, nor to provide the vote tally, in front of experienced editors. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also involved.) Putting aside my thoughts on the merits of this case, a large amount of the opposition was about whether X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter, which I do not think was rebutted sufficiently. There are also a number of editors who give conflicting thoughts as what exactly to do - should the scope of the articles be altered? Combine this with what feel to me like confused editors conflating issues at hand, and I'm not convinced this was a good WP:NAC. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9 The solution is not perfect. The correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X. However, that isn't happening, and keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X and is different from Twitter. Referring to a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor by the same name constitutes misinformation. In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK now what about the part where there wasn't any consensus in the discussion? --FMSky (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky From my observation, more people supported the move. Considering this, and acknowledging the series of previous failed attempts with Twitter, I found it acceptable. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't a vote and I found it acceptable isn't a closing rationale. I'm genuinely seeking clarity on how you determined consensus. In particular:

Which comments presented the evidence that led you to determine that X is a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor?
Did policy impact your judgement of the arguments presented in any way, and if so, how?
How, if at all, did you sort through comments that appeared confused about the subject of the RM or added further stipulations (e.g. two users supported "with conditions" and their conditions were incompatible; I would personally find these quite hard to weigh in establishing consensus)?
You suggested above that the recent Twitter RM (and others) played into your closure; can you clarify how?

I don't mind that you gave a short closing rationale; it's normal to think something is uncontroversial and clear-cut and then find out after that it's not. However, we're now at the point where multiple editors are requesting clarity, and I'd personally appreciate a more in-depth answer here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylnuge If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is X not a microblogging site? How so? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS In the lead paragraph, "Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." If votes were used on an open encyclopedia, it would be extremely easy for bad actors to sockpuppet discussions and this move was premature. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Education Auditor I made the decision based on analyzing each comment. When the comments lacked clear consensus, I considered where they ultimately leaned. As you mentioned, achieving unanimity is not possible, but the discussion clearly leaned more towards the page move, and I supported it. Additionally, people asking me to explain each step of how I analyzed each statement is overkill. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made a number of times that "X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter". The statement "correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X" may imply partiality when combined with the statement that "keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X and is different from Twitter" and that referring "to a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor by the same name constitutes misinformation." especially since no further information was provided to back this claim.

This may not be in line with WP:TITLECHANGES which states that changing "one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged" and that in "discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage."

WP:CRITERIA is a key policy used to determine article titles but writing things like "In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense." is also unhelpful because the rationale used to not want to follow a policy is that it isn't common sense? The reply given to a request for clarity above was "If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you.", which also may not have been constructive as it doesn't answer the questions and implies that X is not a microblogging site.

I hope that I'm not casting any aspersions or implying bad faith at all but perhaps it is understandable why a number of users are scrutinising the move? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against Twitter/X as I was conditional supportive of an article called X (social network). 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Education Auditor I am not well-versed in giving bulletproof replies, and I respond to everything within my capacity. Yet, the first thing in the morning, I am seeing more explanations required. I may have overreacted by shutting down with a short answer, sorry for that. Also conditions could be met while restructuring the document, and you may even find a better way of representing things while restructuring. I made the first move by moving the page. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been more ideal to leave closing the discussion to someone who could've provided clarification for any resulting action. I believe you have acted in good faith so please don't feel upset. Take a break if you feel overwhelmed and don't see any comment here as reflective of who you are as a real person in the real world. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 07:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am still learning new things through the process. ☺️ Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly this was a very poor decision. There was not a consensus, and now we have two pages about the exact same website. The page was moved when it absolutely should have been closed as no consensus at most. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) My decision is based on an independent, impartial analysis of the discussion, and that analysis supported the page move. Angrily redirecting X (social network) and making several other edits, then copying my statement and calling it for a review, is not the right way to deal with it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:Assume good faith on Di's part. While redirecting the page to Twitter without any warning or discussion was wrong, they are legitimately bringing up concerns on your closing rationale.

I do however believe that your analysis is impartial and independent though. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtletennisfogwheat I kept the closing rationale short with the belief that it wouldn't create another controversy. The Twitter page move had failed several times before, and this page move was the aggregate decision of that discussion. Yet, the desire for a unanimous vote for such a controversial move is unbelievable. Also, thank you for your kind words. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not “angrily redirect” the page. I redirected it because I was confused, and to me it looked like somebody had simply duplicated the page. I thought that a mistake had been made, there was no anger on my part. My confusion was completely understandable and justified considering the fact that Twitter and X (social network) are the exact same thing and having two pages for the same thing makes no sense. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) I apologize for my rude reaction, assuming that you observed the page move and felt frustrated by it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding, I accept your apology. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) ☺️ Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for X (social network)[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of X (social network). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]