This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mansukhsurin (talk | contribs) at 15:54, 14 April 2018 (→Not an expert here.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:54, 14 April 2018 by Mansukhsurin (talk | contribs) (→Not an expert here.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is Titodutta's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
Show anotherWhat does the blind man know of the beauty of the tulip?
— Indian proverb
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | You can leave me a message on Sarahah at titodutta |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your contribution against Vandalism in the articles Kabir (film) and in Sabyasachi Chakrabarty. P.Shiladitya 02:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you. --Titodutta (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
- News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.
- Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.
- Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Misplaced Pages readers
- Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs
- Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.
- Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.
- Humour: WikiWorld Reruns
- Quite interesting
- Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-03-29/Humour. --Titodutta (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
Administrator changes
331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
Guideline and policy news
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
Technical news
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Daroji Eramma
Hello! Your submission of Daroji Eramma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nizil (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Irish Landmark Trust
Hi, are you still doing this review? Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, was really busy in RL. It is 3:41 am here. Will finish it tomorrow morning. --Titodutta (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A few links for study
Just a collection of a few links and references for. This is the discussion
- Mahatma Gandhi's passport application mentions "I am a British protected subject"
- File:Quaid passport burhan.jpg, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's passport, "Empire of India".
--Titodutta (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jinnah's passport (link above), also mentions "British Subject by birth" at lower right corner. Are subject and citizen same/similar? Unsure, need to check further.
--11:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC) - From Indian nationality law#History Misplaced Pages article:
- Indians resident and born in British India came under the direct dominion of and bore allegiance to the British Crown, and held the status of British subject. From 1 January 1915, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 defined British subjects as those born or naturalised in the British Sovereign's dominions (including British India), women married to men born or naturalised in the aforementioned Crown dominions and children legitimately born to a British subject father anywhere in the world.
- Indians resident and born in a princely state (also known as an "Indian state" or a "Native state") under the British Raj, or in any other British protectorate or protected state under the British government, held the status of British protected person. This status extended to the wives and legitimate offspring of male subjects of those states. British protected persons were considered de jure foreigners, but could travel on British-issued passports.
--Titodutta (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- Citations
- legislation.gov.uk: "British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914" (original as printed)
- Notes
- For example, see attached regulations for the 1851 Research Fellowship for Indians, with reference to Indians from princely states as British protected persons (Current Science - Science Notes and News)
Not an expert here.
Shuerly not an expert here please ignore or improve the editing done by me.