User talk:Tech editor007

Hello there. This is my talk page. You're encouraged to question anything related to my contributions in Wikipedia. I may take 24-48 hours to answer. Please bear with that. --Tech editor007 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Adamstraw99. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gabbar Singh (character) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     I left you a message on your talk page, and why you should revert the article back to where I edited it. This is not pushing an agenda. It is about 
     reporting popular news events. You cannot ignore popular stories published in Indian media concerning Indian characters. Thanks.
     Tech editor007 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through my user-page and check the list of articles created by me, You will find that I Am well aware of popular Indian Trends, Kindly note that Wikipedia articles are written with a neutral point of view and the thing you are trying to add in Gabbar singh article is totally undue, Maybe it would be better to add that in GST article because movie character article readers may not be interested in how any political party is using this character's name in unrelated political scene, that is totally undue here... kindly also read WP:NOTNP... thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too busy right now to contest your reversing of my edits. But remember that it isn't over yet. I'm not pushing a political agenda. The use of stock fictional characters to mock anybody in real life, if well-documented in news stories, is not against Wikipedia policies. For example, Hillary Clinton's use of "deplorable" to criticize Trump supporters. I think it's been covered on Wikipedia in the page, "deplorable". I think there are plenty of other examples. As long as the subject has gained notoriety or popularity, they can be included in Wikipedia in a "third person reporting style". Why treat Indian political affairs with strict rules, and give a pass to Trump-Hillary? That's double standards. I will pile more evidence for my edits very soon. Lastly I'm as apolitical as it gets. But I'm terribly annoyed by ignorance and assumptions on this topic. As if you're a know it all, and I don't matter here as much as you do. Please let some air in.

Until later. Tech editor007 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I did a check of the entry, "Deplorable Word" and Hillary-Trump's name hasn't been mentioned there.

I think you were right and I was wrong. So, we're good now for the moment. But I'll keep a watch on that page just in case.

Bye for now. Tech editor007 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Tech editor007 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]