User talk:PJ1729
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, PJ1729, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Sharad Pawar, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
June 2019: Sharad Pawar
[edit]Hi PJ1729. Your edits on Sharad Pawar have been reverted because they link to sources that are not WP:RS for Wikipedia. For examples of RS in WP see this useful list: [[1]]. Also, unsourced statements that are WP:PROMO or WP:PUFFERY are also problematic on WP, particularly when there is now reliable independent RS supporting them. Avoid making changes to the summary of an article when there is no reference to what you are saying in the body of the article, or such edits will be reverted. Hope this helps you to understand better how WP works. thanks. 16:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Sharad Pawar. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you continue to try and push information from sources that are not acceptable as WP:RS in a WP:BLP you will find editing privileges are withdrawn. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- BritishFinance, I take exception to your mischaracterizing my edits. Just look at the edit history and any one can see that I am trying to improve sources and add key facts. On the other hand you are summarily deleting my changes without discussing. Please do not summarily change my changes. I am open to suggestions and every time I am trying to improve. I also think you are unnecessarily issuing me warnings over defamation. That is so far from truth. Where is the defamation? Can you please sight one change I made that constitutes defamation. On the other hand I do think this article has a lot of defamatory material in the controversy section that is nothing but hearsay. You would do well to take a look at that material for all the criteria book you are throwing at me. PJ1729 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- The issues are not defamation, it is adding material from non-WP sources (Facebook, youtube, Quora etc.). Making unsourced WP:PROMO statements in the lede. And general disruptive edits (e.g. adding material in the lede that is not in the body of the article). Britishfinance (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Sharad Pawar 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have now reverted other editors over 4 times, including reverting edits where you added content from non-RS (Facebook, youtube and Quora) and added statements which were regarded as highly POV and WP:PROMO. Reverting content that is unsourced or non-RS is not edit warring. You need to discuss any concerns you have on the Talk Page of the article and get consensus from other editors on your views. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing on this page Britishfinance (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are vandalizing my talk page now. We already have a section above for this matter. Why are you creating another one.
- Also as I said anybody can look at page history of Sharad Pawar and see that I tried to comply with your suggestions and even now I am open. When facebook or youtube or quota was not accepted, I changed the sources. When the indic script is not accepted I removed it and used roman. I also accepted that "Progressive" is a bit subjective and so removed it. I am open to further changes based on clear policies and guidelines. For discussion of changes please see my summary comments every time I publish changes. None of the changes are random. I am trying to move forward.
- You on the other hand are summarily removing my changes even when I am adjusting them to reflect your feedback. So who is edit warring here?
- Finally, I do want to ask you, do you even read scripts in Sharad Pawar's native language? If not, what makes you think you know better about any of these topics. I am happy to accept your suggestions about Wikipedia methods and policies. But as far as subject matter goes, you should present alternative view rather than summarily deleting other peoples' work.