User talk:MaithilDil

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Sangram Singh 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; read about 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. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Someonewhoisusinginternet

I acknowledge your concerns regarding our recent interactions on the Sangram Singh Wikipedia page. My intention in editing the page was solely to enhance its authenticity and accuracy by correcting discrepancies and updating it with necessary information, such as Sangram Singh's recent return to the professional ring and personal milestones like his marriage. Each of my edits was carefully substantiated with relevant citations, keeping in line with Wikipedia's policies.

I was genuinely surprised and disappointed to find my contributions removed without discussion, particularly since I made efforts to reach out both on the article's talk page and your personal talk page for a constructive dialogue, yet received no acknowledgement.

I understand the importance of avoiding edit wars and am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines for resolving content disputes amicably. Moving forward, I am eager to engage in a collaborative discussion to reach a consensus that reflects the most accurate and comprehensive version of the article. I believe that through open communication, we can enhance the quality of the content on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Best regards, MaithilDil (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read this section-

'do not bite the newcomers'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well.
Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

MaithilDil (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest.

Given that your editing history on Wikipedia consists almost entirely of adding promotional content to the Sangram Singh page, and given the long history that page has had with multiple contributors adding similar content, some of which have proven to have been editing in contravention to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines and/or in violation of the Wikimedia terms of use in regards to undeclared paid editing, I have to ask where you have any connection, financial or personal, with Singh? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @AndyTheGrump,

I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia's content and value the extensive contributions you've made to the platform. However, I feel compelled to address the concerns surrounding the recent interactions on the Sangram Singh article, particularly regarding the removal of edits and the portrayal of those edits as promotional.

Your assertion that my contributions have been solely promotional overlooks the factual and verifiable nature of the information I aimed to add. This includes significant updates about Sangram Singh's professional achievements and his role in notable government of India initiatives like 'Fit India'. It is disheartening to witness these contributions being summarily dismissed without an opportunity for open dialogue, detracting from the spirit of collaboration and the accuracy of Wikipedia.

There seems to be a mix-up with the edits removed yesterday. The deleted content wasn't added by me. This confusion might stem from @Someonewhoisusinginternet who previously reversed both my contributions and some of yours. As a result, the content you removed, thinking it was mine, actually wasn't. This illustrates a misunderstanding that I hope we can clarify moving forward.

Furthermore, the immediate deletion of content and the perception of ownership in decision-making challenge the respectful discourse foundational to Wikipedia's community. Such actions not only discourage contributors but also deviate from the platform's guidelines on neutrality and collaborative editing.

I assure you, my contributions are made in good faith, with the aim of enriching Wikipedia with balanced and well-sourced information. I am fully committed to constructive dialogue to address any concerns regarding conflict of interest or the integrity of the contributions.

In light of these considerations, I am eager to engage in productive discussions to resolve these issues. My goal remains to enhance Wikipedia, ensuring the Sangram Singh article is as informative and accurate as possible for the benefit of all users.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective. I look forward to overcoming this impasse together, fostering an environment of mutual respect and cooperation within the Wikipedia community.

Best regards, MaithilDil (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the question I asked. Do you have any connection, financial or personal, with Singh? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AndyTheGrump,

Thank you for your follow-up. To directly address your question: I do not have any financial or personal connection with Sangram Singh. My contributions to the Sangram Singh article have been motivated purely by an interest in ensuring the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia's content. I understand the importance of transparency and the concerns around conflict of interest, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.

Best regards, MaithilDil (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while we strive for accuracy, 'comprehensiveness' is not necessarily something aimed for in an encyclopaedia. Articles are supposed to summarise, not document in exhaustive detail every single thing one can find out about a subject. And with regard to your recent reverted edits, I will ask you once again to read MOS:LEDE. With the exception of a few core biographical details (e'.g. full name, date of birth), nothing should appear in the lede that isn't discussed in more depth in the article body. The lede for the Singh biography is not a dumping ground for details of whatever Singh is currently engaged in.

And if you are genuinely concerned with accuracy, you could usefully do something about the poor sourcing of much of the article, and the tables towards the end in particular. Many of the sources cited clearly don't meet WP:RS, and give every impression of being further examples of the sort of paid-for promotional content masquerading as editorial material that the Indian media (amongst others, though it may well be amongst the worst) suffers from. The sort of content that has obliged Wikipedia to include an entire section on the topic (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) in our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discussion. Such sources are often easy to spot, when discussing Singh, since they often read very much as if they were written for the sole purpose of providing citations for the Wikipedia biography, if they weren't plagiarised from it. Repetitive, full of unsubstantiated puffery (e.g. describing Singh as a 'philanthropist' without providing anything of substance to back it up), and not infrequently accompanied by a photo of Singh receiving some sort of award that nobody seems to have heard of. I have no doubts that Singh has some talents beyond self-publicity, and those are the ones this article needs to concentrate on. A concise biography explaining to readers what he is actually notable for, rather than one cobbled together out of every positive thing about him that he has ever said, done, or been somewhere in the vague vicinity of would probably portray him in a better light to most readers, I suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's standards for article ledes and the necessity of reliable sourcing as outlined in WP:RS and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I'm committed to revising the Sangram Singh article to focus on the verifiable details, ensuring the content meets Wikipedia's criteria for neutrality and verifiability.

I plan to undertake this task in a phased manner, to ensure the quality and accuracy of the work. This approach will allow me to thoughtfully address the issues you've highlighted.

I must also express concerns about our interactions. While I appreciate constructive criticism and aim to learn from experienced editors, I've felt that the approach towards my contributions has sometimes been dismissive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's welcoming and respectful environment for newcomers. Specifically, actions perceived as bullying or doubting my integrity, and the swift deletion of content without discussion, have been discouraging. I respectfully suggest revisiting the Wikipedia guideline on "Please do not bite the newcomers."

It's important to note that the edits which seemed to cause frustration were not made by me. Despite this, I've felt targeted and held responsible for these changes, which has been confusing and unwelcoming.

I believe in the value of every contributor's integrity and the importance of collaborative effort in improving Wikipedia. I hope we can move forward with mutual respect, focusing on enhancing the encyclopedia's content through constructive dialogue and collaboration.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue. I look forward to working together to enhance the Sangram Singh article and contribute to the Wikipedia community. MaithilDil (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using ChatGPT or something similar to create your responses? They seem distinctly repetitive and formulaic to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may be surprised by my patience and manners despite your bullying tactics. Your focus has been towards personal criticisms rather than constructive dialogue.

As we continue this discourse, it's essential to highlight the importance of the language we use, especially in public edits related to Indian personalities. The word you've chosen in some of your public comments are not only misaligned with the respectful and inclusive tone Wikipedia promotes but also potentially cross ethical boundaries and legal standards in India.

Given these considerations, I earnestly advise a reassessment of the language used in our communications.

Would again advise you to read Wikipedia guideline on "Please do not bite the newcomers." MaithilDil (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that my intention was never to issue a legal threat but to express concern over the use of offensive language, including some 'F' words, in edits, which could alienate many users, especially women, in our culture.

Mention of a legal threat- it's important to note that legal provisions should not be disregarded.

My extensive contributions were removed in one sweep. When I started dialogue I was publicly accused of taking money for my edits. These things were done citing Wikipedia's rules, but couldn’t I refer the laws of the land as part of our dialogue? This was a request to make a respectful communication. I was continuously being bullied and threatened.

I have always strived to adhere to Wikipedia standards, diligently working to improve the Sangram Singh page with responsible edits and cleaning [could be checked in the edit history]. I've welcomed all feedback, even when it felt more like directives, and immediately corrected any oversights when pointed out. My edits were never promotional; I've made efforts to enhance the article's quality. A single instance cited as promotional was an oversight on my part, where I didn’t remove one reference from the earlier text, which I corrected immediately upon notice and acknowledged the feedback.

From the outset, I encountered a reception that seemed contrary to Wikipedia's encouragement of assuming good faith with newcomers. This has often felt like bullying, which goes against the spirit of supportive and constructive community engagement encouraged by Wikipedia. * Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

I am committed to contributing positively within the guidelines of Wikipedia and hope we can shift towards a more collaborative and respectful interaction moving forward.

Thank you for considering my perspective. MaithilDil (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You must unambiguously withdraw your legal threat, and you must stop using Chat GPT or any other AI technology to crank out vaguely plausible wordy bullshit. Genuine human communication is essential here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are being misguided. I request you to read my above response and then tell me to "withdraw legal threat". Where is the "legal threat" at all??

my concern was about offensive language in edits, which could deter users, especially women. Please review the interactions that have felt like bullying to me as a new user. You are being more harsh. MaithilDil (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think ChatGPT can really write these?

Check my first message— and all messages thereafter.

I asked why my posts about Sangram Singh's role in 'Fit India' were deleted.

I feel upset that all my contributions were deleted without a chance to talk.

I reminded his that I am a new user. Also told him he's confused by edits from someone else who deleted my posts and some of his too.

He never answered my points, just blamed and insulted me.

Your action is completely against Natural justice. MaithilDil (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out - Wiki says you can ask the admins who blocked you for clarification, and they're supposed to respond.

you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block.

Now tell me why I have been blocked? Your above reason is completely invalid. I have not made any threat at all. It seems you guys act like a group.

He's getting all touchy and sensitive, like seriously? Where's the treat?

He used 'F' words, in edits, which could alienate many users, especially women, in our culture.

He didn't reply to any of my points.

He never followed this

'do not bite the newcomers'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

He never believed in this principle of

Assume good faith on the part of newcomers.

He behaved like an owner of this platform.

He indirectly blamed me of taking money for my edits.

He must be asked now if he is getting paid by some of the opponents? MaithilDil (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough here. Talk page access revoked. Any unblock appeals can go via WP:UTRS. Daniel (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]