User talk:Premknutsford25

Welcome!

Hello, Premknutsford25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to B. R. Ambedkar does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BR Ambedkar

Hey, Can you please see {{cite book}} for citing the references for B. R. Ambedkar article? Blueyarn (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by more than one contributor at the Ambedkar article. Please could you read WP:BRD before reinstating that content. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please note that we 1) do not "protect" articles to favor one person's verison of and article; 2) calling someone else's good faith edits vandalism is considered to be a personal attack, and can result in your account being blocked. This is especially true if your additions had to be removed for very basic policy reasons; i.e., here, the copyright violations. I tried to improve your writing once, keeping at least a little bit of it, but you just went right back and tried to jam in your non-neutral, badly sourced, and, now I find out, copyright violation. Any more edit warring and you will be blocked. Go to Talk: B. R. Ambedkar and discuss your suggestions, and find out if there is consensus to include even part of that. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Premknutsford25: Can you please see {{cite book}} for citing the references for B. R. Ambedkar article? can you cite page number details and all other information for your contribution? Here is your contribution. Please copyedit and add from academic sources. Blueyarn (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Premknutsford25, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to B. R. Ambedkar has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. And Bhakra Dam. Please note that if you add this again you will probably be blocked, and that any text you do add can't be just minor changes, it must clearly be in your own words and sourced appropriately. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Sitush has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Answering an edit war-warning with the same template is not exactly decent behaviour. Please try to understand the reason for the warning you received. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Bhakra Dam has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NortyNort (Holla) 17:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to B. R. Ambedkar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to listen to other editors

You have at least 7 editors, two of them Administrators warning you or asking you to cite properly on this talk page. If you continue to ignore them one of us will probably take you to WP:ANI and ask you to be blocked or topic banned from this article. A few points. Articles cannot say that someone was the most educated, the best, marvelous, etc. They can say that someone else has said that, but that someone must clearly be eminent enough for their opinions to be valuable. The same goes for the statement ". Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports," - that needs to be attributed.

You can't just link to AbeBooks, etc. You need to do a proper citation as per WP:CITE and for books these must include author, publisher, date of the edition used, and page number(s). You need to have read your sources and might be asked to show you have read them. Sources must meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Roundtable India doesn't. Some of the others may not either, I haven't looked at them all.

What you now need to do is clean up the language you've used, attribute where necessary, source properly, and add it to the talk page for discussion. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1)at Dougweller, you said that "Articles cannot say that someone was the most educated, the best, marvelous, etc. They can say that someone else has said that, but that someone must clearly be eminent enough for their opinions to be valuable." When i mentioned that Member of Planning commission and Natioanal Advisory council, (Which is evidently eminent enough for their opinion), but your friend Qwyrxian doesn't agree with this. 2)thanks for advice on how to give proper citation. I will work on it and believe after this proper citation. Nobody will have any objection. 3)seek one more help from administrotor, how to identify Sock puppetry (Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)), I am suspicious about some administrators. Your advice will be highly appreciated. Thanks,Premknutsford25 (talk)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Premknutsford25! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Premknutsford25. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Deletion discussion about Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical Sciences University

Hello, Premknutsford25,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical Sciences University should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical Sciences University .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]