User talk:Param Mudgal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Hello and Welcome to my talk page.Please remember to sign your posts after every query!!

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
ta-da Magicsan (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Param Mudgal talk? 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


You deleted a total paragraph in the European Debt Crisis article without mentioning what sentences you are opposing. With your bulk deleting method you and I could delelete many more paragraphs in this article, also in the lead, like vandalism. It would help you were more specific.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@EconomicsEconomics:I understand your problem but the information you added was unsourced.Wikipedia Articles need to have reliable sources.See : Referencing for help.If you need any more help then you are welcome to ask more questions on my talk page.Thanks.--Param Mudgal talk? 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The "problem" here seems to be that you didn't understand the comment above (23:54, 14 December 2015), so let it be my fault I haven't explained it better.
My question was what part of the paragraph you deleted in bulk you think needs to be verified. As you can see, many paragraphs in the article are not sourced because much of their content may be common sense. Normally, before anyone does a bulk deleting, he has many constructive options, like to ask in the discussion about things that could be unclear, or to add a "verification needed" tag.
So, are you able to identify what you think needs to materially verified?
Or, do you think it is a good idea to just delete total paragraphs in that article as a more aggressive approach to ask for verifications. Do you think it is a good idea that right now I delete many more paragraphs in the article that don't have citations?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely Understood what you are trying to convey.I fully respect your opinion.The problem here is that the content which was added in previous revisions is very difficult to change completely.The content which has been added before can be made verifiable through the editors like us.As a responsible wikipedian if you , me or any other editor is aware of the fact that the present information is not verifiable or not cited through proper reliable sources then we should help in adding those reliable sources in the article.And as per the content which was reverted by me , it was reverted in Good Faith and as per my responsibility i can't allow more Unverifiable Information to be added inside an article, you only think that if all the wikipedia editors including me start allowing Unreferenced information inside the wikipedia Articles then the information presented through the wikipedia platform will be wrong and full of errors also.I once again clarify that this was not an aggressive approach against you, this was done so that you come back with an information which is identifiable with reliable sources and which is fully correct.I hope you understood my point.And thank you for asking me this question.If you have any question regarding this or you need help for any other issue i will be more than Happy To Help.Thanks.--Param Mudgal talk? 19:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your answers still have nothing to do with my questions, so again:
1. You deleted about 130 words. Do you think each of the 130 words need to be verified, or are there certain material aspects that you think needs to be sourced as it is neither common knowledge nor explained by the context of the article?
2. Do you want that we immediately delete all paragraphs in that article that are not sourced ?
Additional question: You also reinstated the sentence "The detailed causes of the debt crisis varied [between the 5 countries]" without verifying that. Can you source that? Because I think that is not true.
Thank you for answering my questons (instead of repeating what I didn't ask).--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
And who are "editors like us"? Is that a special group of editors? Do they understand the "European Debt Crisis" article better than others? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EconomicsEconomics:Hi, my answers were related to your questions only but let me explain to you again.Each wording doesn't need to be verified in Wikipedia.According to the community guidelines Inline Citations need to be added inside an article.For every information which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited through proper reliable sources.For help see:WP:Verifiability.As per your second question, the information which was added in the previous revisions need not be deleted (i have explained to you the reason above) instead you can help by adding reliable sources to the information which looks unsourced and the information which could be challenged or likely to be challenged.

And regarding the additional question which you have asked i would like you to start a discussion about the information which you think is not true on the talk page but first you should provide the reliable sources which can support your viewpoint.

And regarding your last question which you have misunderstood completely, From "Editors like us" i mean that the editors like you and me who are hard working and who constantly work to improve the Credibility and Worthiness of the Wikipedia Articles.I didn't mean a Special Group who could understand a particular article better.Infact , there are no Special Groups in Wikipedia.All the editors are equal under the Wikipedia Guidelines and all the editors work together for the betterment of the articles present inside Wikipedia.It's an honour to answer your questions and if you would like to ask anything more you are more than welcome to ask it on my talk page.Thanks.--Param Mudgal talk? 18:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: Seeing your answers I feel you don't have the slightest idea about the "European Debt Crisis". It might be of advantage if you do only bulk deleting of paragraphs if you understand the issue of the article and the context of the sections you delete.
As you say yourself - the wikipedia community "can help adding reliable sources to information" - but not if some editors aggressively delete whole paragraphs of articles they have no idea about, they are not able to discuss about, and without giving others in the community reasonable time.
Last but not least: You reinstated the unsourced sentence "The detailed causes of the debt crisis varied [between the 5 countries]" and are thereby contradicting youself. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EconomicsEconomics:First of all, you have added controversial information in the article without verifying it and there was no reason to believe that the information you have added is not an Original Research.You added information that "Greece masked its true deficit and debt level before 2001 to be admitted to the Euro"and other related information, you only tell me that why should i not delete this information which i don't know that it is correct or not as there are no reliable sources proving it.These can also be your personal views which you have added in the article.You have added controversial information about Greece which is negative in context which is also a critical information which can be challenged easily.Instead of blaming me for removing the content you could instead add your information with Reliable Sources to prove your point.And i want to tell you that it is my duty to revert the content which can challenge the Credibility and the Quality of the Articles.As i have told you before if you think that a wrong sentence has been added inside the article which needs to be removed you can remove that while providing Reliable Sources which can support your removal.By now, you should understand that unsourced information is generally not accepted inside Wikipedia.If you have any more questions, i will be happy to answer them also.Thanks.--Param Mudgal talk? 07:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For recognising and removing blatant original research from articles. Thank you and keep up the excellent work. Dr. K. 06:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very very much Dr. K.--Param Mudgal talk? 08:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome Param and thank you also for all the work you do in this project. Best regards. Dr. K. 18:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)