User Talk: Ftrhi

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Recent edits to Up

25px ↗ Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{stop}} Your recent edits to Kim Jong-un ↗ whereby you attempted to label him as a pornstar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Jong-un&type=revision&diff=685579144&oldid=685212081 ↗ have been reverted. This is a serious breach of our biography of living persons policy ↗. You may count this as a '''final warning'''. If you insist on vandalizing Wikipedia, you will very likely be blocked from further editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Jerry Brown in 1980.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thanks for uploading ''':File:Jerry Brown in 1980.jpg ↗''', which you've attributed to Joan Adlen (from EXIF). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA ↗ or another acceptable free license (see this list ↗) '''at the site of the original publication'''; or

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to '''permissions-en@wikimedia.org''', stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here ↗. If you take this step, add {{tl|OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to '''permissions-en@wikimedia.org'''.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content ↗, use a tag such as {{tl|non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use ↗, and add a rationale ↗ justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags ↗ for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=Ftrhi}} your upload log]. '''Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on criteria for speedy deletion ↗. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy ↗. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bob dole clear.jpg.png

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thanks for uploading ''':File:Bob dole clear.jpg.png ↗''', which you've attributed to Hylbom. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA ↗ or another acceptable free license (see this list ↗) '''at the site of the original publication'''; or

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to '''permissions-en@wikimedia.org''', stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here ↗. If you take this step, add {{tl|OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' the region of South Asia ↗ (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), 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) caste-related topics in South Asia.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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} Zalaraz (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

:While I appreciate this notice about a contentious topic I blundered my way into - don't you think it was a little uncouth to send me this notice immediately after accusing me of attacking an author when I disputed his reliability? I'm still not sure what I did wrong there, I would appreciate if you told me so I wouldn't do it again. Regardless, I get the message, I didn't mean to blunder my way into a geopolitical hotspot anyways, that's not what I'm here for Ftrhi (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Savitri and Satyavan ↗. Good stuff. — Longewal (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks, appreciate it! Ftrhi (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have recently made many edits to Hindu American Foundation ↗. Some are fine. But recently you made the same edit in less than 24 hours, which was reverted both times. Gain consensus before making this or any similar edit again. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Shahinshah121 I did not make the same edit again. I specifically edited the things which had nothing to do with the reason for the revert (I packed several changes within a much larger edit) and instead I brought the reason for the revert to the HAF talk page to talk about it. Please double check what changes I've done before levelling such a serious accusation against me. I also notice the stuff you reverted is just...an explanation of what Savera is, for a reader who would have no reason to know anything about them? Again, this is not "watering down" anything so your point here is illogical, I did not edit back the stuff which triggered the revert Ftrhi (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Shahinshah121}} kindly please read this Ftrhi (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Shahinshah121: Vandalism ↗ has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and Ftrhi's edits don't meet that definition. You seem to be accusing Ftrhi of edit warring ↗ (which is different from vandalism), but per Ftrhi's comment above, it doesn't seem like this was edit warring either.
:{{tqb|Any good faith ↗ effort to improve the encyclopedia is {{em|not}} vandalism, even if misguided, willfully against consensus ↗, or disruptive ↗. For example, edit warring ↗ over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. |source=Wikipedia:Vandalism ↗}}
:Cadddr (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)