User talk:Dhawangupta

Welcome!

Hello, Dhawangupta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to N. Chandrababu Naidu. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! IM3847 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Akbar, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the arbitrator of NPOV? Before removing word-by-word primary sourced content, there should be discussion about NPOV on talk page. Being an older editor doesn't give automatic rights to judge and decide NPOV. Dhawangupta (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but being an Administrator for a long time and having been an elected member of the WP:Arbitration Committee shows that the Wikipedia community has trust in him, as does the Foundation. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller, this editor keeps putting "infidel Hindus" in article space--they just did that again. I think it's time to consider blocking the editor. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning but I will make sure that won't happen and will collaborate on talk page from now on. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the slightest way possible editing against a religious or ethnic group you will be at best permanently blocked from anything related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

MEMRI is far too controversial to use as a source for facts. YouTube is rarely a reliable source and in this case you are using an interview with the director of the "Vedic Science Research Institute" which does things such as "Reverse Engineering Vedic Vimanas". Even if the YouTube site was an RS, the person being interviewed is not. If you disagree please ask at WP:RSN to get other opinions before you try to use them again. If you go there quote the text you added as well as the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller That's why, to support these facts, third source of The Diplomat is also mentioned. Isn't it? Any comments on that? Dhawangupta (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Diplomat only says "an attendee at one of its mosques was caught trying to join the Islamic State." How does that justify "It is actively engaged in conversion to Islam. Their members have incited violence publicly as part of Jihad and also have been alleged to have Terror Links with ISIS and engaged with Breaking India forces."? Doug Weller talk 09:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Agreed. It only justifies part of the statement - "members .... have been alleged to have Terror Links with ISIS". I will update with more reliable sources and discuss at WP:RSN as suggested. Thanks for your response. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid articles under sanctions while you learn your way around Wikipedia

Hi Dhawangupta. As you've already been formally notified, some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. There's far less tolerance for unfamiliarity with content and behavioral policy when working on such articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and concern. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABF

Your comments at Talk:Ayurveda #Suggestion to Shed Biases have strayed over the line into assuming bad faith. All claims of a biomedical nature in Wikipedia must be supported by high quality, secondary sources. Your advocacy of primary studies, especially those published in poor quality journals are becoming a time-sink for editors at that talk page. I am therefore giving you the only warning that you will now receive; if you continue this tendentious editing, I'll sanction you in order to prevent further disruption. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "assume" bad faith, biasedness was already evident in the talk page when the editors to whom I responded used words like "Tooth fairy". Similarly, Tendentious editing was already present in the talk page. I only presented an alternate viewpoint, and, I don't think that is prohibited on Wikipedia. The sources presented earlier before me weren't always high quality and they were also primary studies. However, I don't see any warning to other editors.

You are threatening to put sanctions while I haven't even touched the original article. I was only interested in putting forward alternative viewpoint that too as suggestion, so that NPOV can be achieved.

Now, following the guidelines of WP:BRINK, I wish to end the discussion here, after I have put forward my viewpoints. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove sources and information

Your edit on Chandragupta Maurya , you have removed sources saying it's disputed among authors but on Wikipedia you have to keep all views, and it's clearly mentioned in the article that the religion is disputed, so you probably don't need to remove that, which has a citation. Please discuss on talk page of Chandragupta Maurya if you want to take such actions in future. Regards, Rishabh.rsd (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have mentioned "disputed" there, if even that is contested, please discuss on its Talk. Dhawangupta (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hindutva, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Hello, I am sending this message to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Spencer

You cannot simply change words and delete sources that you find inconvenient. Numerous sources have called Spencer anti-Muslim and have called groups that he has founded, such as Stop Islamization of America, anti-Muslim. Snuish (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Kashmir Files, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. No explanation of any kind was given for this deletion of sourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Kashmir_Files&curid=66246079&diff=1077057120&oldid=1077055005 Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I had provided the explanation in the Talk page. Linking for your reference.

Also, I can't seem to find the "reverted". Dhawangupta (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks!

Thanks a lot for your intervention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Veverve. While it seems the admins were not swayed by your arguments, I felt morally better knowing at least one user kindly sympathized with my statements and situation. Have we met before? Veverve (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote there because I am a frequent observer at WP:ARE and edited the page before. No problem! Dhawangupta (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the family dictatorships article

Can you explain why you nominated the article for deletion you didnt even respond to the thinks i said why did you do this

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dhawangupta

Thank you for creating 2022 Birbhum violence.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your recent editing history at Swastika shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]