Good Evening. I was Andrea’s Caregiver in the last few months of her life. She passed the 13th of June, she does not have an obituary as she did not want one. I don’t know how you want me to prove it other than the fact I am sitting next to her husband. Flamingodingo17 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello there - I am very sorry for your loss.

Wikipedia requires that all facts are backed up by reliable sources (especially those about living or recently deceased people). Admittedly, I am unsure of what to do in the case of no obituary - you could try making a post on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, or emailing [email protected] where someone may be able to assist you better. IAmNetx (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will see what I can do ~2026-42561-35 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

🥹 Starr.buot (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, IAmNetx. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

thankyou! IAmNetx (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like you to know I accidentally reported you to AIV! Thought you were a vandal you were fighting for a second. Reverted it almost immediately. Sorry! WikipediholicRat (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

and I would've gotten away with it too..

haha no problem, easy mistake to make :) IAmNetx (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Itsjuenyin has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

preventing from heat, take this to cool it down!

To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Itsjuenyin (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

i said you can edit it not remove by removing it you neutral point of view ~2026-43741-22 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

it some she did and should be on Wikipedia ~2026-43741-22 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you can find a reliable source and can write it in a neutral point of view, I would see no problem with it. I reverted it as you wrote she is evil person and provided Tiktok links, which felt like original research. IAmNetx (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

well let be real if a lady post a video of she calling a person a cry baby cause him cry after a lose is not a evil person then heaven will be full of a-h but that why i left you can edit it because i know i was letting my feel get in the way but it something she did and i give link to the outkick link too

what Wikipedia for if you can't find hard fact that may upset you a little ~2026-43741-22 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not about upsetting anyone - just that content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. If you know that you're letting your feelings get in the way as you said, you could always write something on the talk page for that article asking if someone could add it in a more neutral way. IAmNetx (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

can you please add it in a more neutral way that she bully Caleb Williams saying real man don't cry when that false ~2026-43741-22 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey admin, I want to know why I'm getting unnecessary warnings without proper explanation. I know in the past I sometimes used the help of AI to work fast, but on 8 August I wrote the Xorai article page by myself. I am new here, so it's problematic with me. Other editor user: Ananya Taye writes the xorai artifact manipulating way; they change the year and use fake rumors. This will affect my own community. I request you first check my article, which part I use a large language model for. Then, if there is also a problem, I will give you proper sources so the admin can fix this problem of the xorai artifact. Otherwise, those who own the Xorai artifact will get effects on their history. Ney konware (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ney konware. I am not an administrator, but I reverted it as AI because large parts of it did seem AI generated to me. For example:

• Such a design is not accidental at all; it is a clear example of the application of culture-specific logic to create meaning - very LLM-worded - "not X, but Y". There are several other examples of this throughout.
• Header titles such as The Apex of a 6,000-Year Old Journey

It also reads very much as original research, which would also raise issues regardless of whether an AI was used:

• it proves that the object was not an adopted local utensil
• Herein lies a definitive example of historical evidence, which clearly demonstrates that the bota and xorai were important tools

To also be a bit blunt, the level of English shown in the article compared to how you respond on talk pages etc are very different, which is a bit of a flag itself.

There's obviously a chance I am wrong (and I might see something as LLM-generated where others may not), but that's why I reverted it :) IAmNetx (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for understanding the situation, but I have a request... Can you fix this problem with the xorai page? If I edit again, I'll probably be banned because I'm getting so many warnings.

I'm making a few points, and I request you to please review my article and his article and compare them...

In the xorai page... User: Ananya Taye, he's written in a narrative style and even changed the year. Why am I mentioning this?

The article is written in a mixed manner, with references from different narratives, and a small prefix sentence has been added to support his narrative.

Example: The xorai page on Wikipedia

Dhavalikar suggested that the vessel may have been used for serving tambul (betel nut and leaf), as in contemporary Assam, noting that the corresponding dish-on-stand like the Bota or Xorai[12]

But there's no mention of this in the related Dhavalikar article.

He mentioned a dish on stand served for worship; they must be different things and they does't not mention dish on stand like bota and xorai, but Wikipedia doesn't mention it properly and written dishes on a stand like bota and xorai they write by their own way .

manipulating Year :

Wikipedia states:

A passage in the Satsari Buranji mentions the gift of two golden xorais and two pieces of cloth by the Chutia king to prachenmung Gohain, indicating the use of such ceremonial items in the political and court culture of the time.[19] An engraved bota recovered from a Chutia house in the Titabor area of ​​present-day Jorhat district bears the Assamese inscription "১৩১৭ সন ছাৰি শাবন মাশ", which has been interpreted as 1317 Saka -1395 AD.[20]

File:১৩১৭ সন ছাৰি শাবন মাশ.jpg

And regarding this xorai artifact,  written"১৩১৭ সন ছাৰি শাৱন মাস  (1317 Son Chari Shavan Mash)

But how would the word "saka" come from? Saka is not mentioned in the artifact photo, and this completely changes the narrative.

Son/San (সন): Son or San comes from Arabic and Persian languages, meaning year or era. This word did not exist in ancient or medieval Indian languages. It was introduced during the Mughal period to introduce a solar calendar in every region for agricultural and tax purposes. In Assamese, "Son" refers to the Bhaskarabda solar calendar, which began in 593-594 CE.

1317 (Bhaskarabda year) + 593 (Bhaskarabda base) = 1910 CE

Saka (শক / শকাব্দ): Saka is a Sanskrit word associated with the Classical Sanskrit period of the older Saka dynasty, which began in 78 CE. In genuine medieval Assamese inscriptions, whether royal inscriptions, stone inscriptions, or manuscripts, the Saka era is written using Saka or Shakabda. Shakabda is the common calendar system of medieval India.

1317 (Saka year) + 78 (Saka base) = 1395 CE

Is it possible to change the year to prove the story? This will have an impact on history and tell me if the editors use Satsari Buranji to give evidence of the two xorai theories from the Chutia community, then why don't they add from Satsari Buranji page no. 48 that King Sukaphaa sent his royal ambassadors in 1263 CE (1185 Saka) to King Chusanphaa, who was the king of the neighbouring area. "...চুত্ৰনফাৰ ঠাইলৈ কটকী পঠালে, সন্দেশ-পত্ৰকো দি পঠালে, — ৰূপৰ টাউকিন, বটা, কলহ ৩ টা, বেলা দুখন, তাউ কাপোৰ ১১ খন, বচোৱাল ১০ খন দি পঠালে।"

Translation: "In the year 1263 CE (1185 Saka), to formalize diplomatic relations and form a government alliance, King Sukaphaa sent a royal delegation with greetings to King Chusanphaa, the king of a neighboring kingdom. The diplomatic mission presented a variety of official gifts, including a silver ceremonial jar (toukin), a footed offering tray (bota), three metal pitchers (kola), two flat dishes (bela), eleven hand-woven royal cloths (tau kapur), and ten sashes (bosowal)." Why not use this sentence in the same book? If this thing was written,

This xorai artifact was written by a specific one  community to create their own proof. , their multiple reference layers to mix everything up and manipulating  the year... I request you to correct what I wrote on the xorai artifact page. Please rewrite it and request the blocking of the user: Ananya Taye. Ney konware (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply