User talk:Basuupendra

Welcome!

Hello, Basuupendra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Soman (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk page etiquette

Hi, if a user on his talkpage removes your post and is not interested in discussion the generally held position is they have a right to do that, reverting a user on his own talkpage is not recommended at all and to be avoided.Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Allright, i've no problem in that, But dont you think he must have a moral duty to prove his Reverts.
Basuupendra (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course bring those issues to the related talkpages and get some independent outside opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Sure, I will do that. Thanks for kind suggestion.
Basuupendra (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, if you have anything I can help you with and I can help I will. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks, i will keep in touch.
Basuupendra (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AITC PAGE

Hi, I've saw your edits on that page regarding "AITC-MAOIST" Nexus. Though as I personally believe that all the controversy sections that claim unproved claims must be removed from political party articles. BUT as it seems impossible in the current framework of wikipedia, then I've no right to stop you. But what I want you to do is to shorten the overemphasized portions of that article.
Best.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-May be you are saying right from your own experiences, but whole bengal is sick of this T-rinamul-Maoist violence and there must be a end to it. Thanks to mainstream newspapers which finally unfolds the truth, that Left-Front is claiming from last so many years. I dont think there is a need to edit any section of my edits, as i've used inline citations, and nothing is overemphasized.
thanks.
-Basuupendra (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edti war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on All India Trinamool Congress. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not engaged in an "Edit War", I am writing authentic material based on well know references, then You are censoring my word by describing me as "POV pusher". There is nothing like edit war in the maqtter, wikipedia openly encourages to take a firm stand boldly if you have something correct to speak out.
-Basuupendra (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:3RR? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse I have, and KKM010 must also read them too. I hope you are well versed with the Fifth Pillar of wikipedia Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
By the way i'hv rewritten that controversy section, as you've suggested.
Basuupendra (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the important part there is "if it improves the encyclopedia" - how does editwarring to insert POV commentaries improve the encyclopedia? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on All India Trinamool Congress. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE [1] at All India Trinamool Congress - while the places the content is from are major dailies, 1) they are from the editorial and opinion sections, and 2) the content is being cherry picked and presented in POV manner. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Look sometimes cream is not that sweet as it looks, it may have a sour taste. My sources are well as per the wikipedia. You have no right to censor well researched content. So why are you agitating. I think you are taking some non-neutral tilt. You are also abide by 3RRR policy. I've presented no editorial opinion, but the news reports, you can see it evidently in the Mail-Today story.
Basuupendra (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

ANI discussion involving you
[edit]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_repeatedly_entering_a_.22controversy.22_into_article. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
September 2010
[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]