User talk:Dhawangupta: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎ABF: new section
Line 45: Line 45:
Hi Dhawangupta. As you've already been formally notified, some topic areas within Wikipedia have [[Wikipedia:General_sanctions| special editing restrictions]] that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]]. There's far less tolerance for unfamiliarity with content and behavioral policy when working on such articles. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal/Ronz]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dhawangupta. As you've already been formally notified, some topic areas within Wikipedia have [[Wikipedia:General_sanctions| special editing restrictions]] that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]]. There's far less tolerance for unfamiliarity with content and behavioral policy when working on such articles. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal/Ronz]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks for your advice and concern. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta#top|talk]]) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks for your advice and concern. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta#top|talk]]) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

== ABF ==

Your comments at [[Talk:Ayurveda #Suggestion to Shed Biases]] have strayed over the line into [[WP:AGF|assuming bad faith]]. All claims of a biomedical nature in Wikipedia must be supported by [[WP:MEDRS|high quality, secondary sources]]. Your advocacy of primary studies, especially those published in poor quality journals are becoming a time-sink for editors at that talk page. I am therefore giving you the only warning that you will now receive; if you continue this [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]], I'll sanction you in order to prevent further disruption. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:02, 6 July 2020

Welcome!

Hello, Dhawangupta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to N. Chandrababu Naidu. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! IM3847 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 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.

Template:Z33 El_C 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Akbar, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the arbitrator of NPOV? Before removing word-by-word primary sourced content, there should be discussion about NPOV on talk page. Being an older editor doesn't give automatic rights to judge and decide NPOV. Dhawangupta (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but being an Administrator for a long time and having been an elected member of the WP:Arbitration Committee shows that the Wikipedia community has trust in him, as does the Foundation. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doug Weller, this editor keeps putting "infidel Hindus" in article space--they just did that again. I think it's time to consider blocking the editor. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the warning but I will make sure that won't happen and will collaborate on talk page from now on. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the slightest way possible editing against a religious or ethnic group you will be at best permanently blocked from anything related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

MEMRI is far too controversial to use as a source for facts. YouTube is rarely a reliable source and in this case you are using an interview with the director of the "Vedic Science Research Institute" which does things such as "Reverse Engineering Vedic Vimanas". Even if the YouTube site was an RS, the person being interviewed is not. If you disagree please ask at WP:RSN to get other opinions before you try to use them again. If you go there quote the text you added as well as the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller That's why, to support these facts, third source of The Diplomat is also mentioned. Isn't it? Any comments on that? Dhawangupta (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Diplomat only says "an attendee at one of its mosques was caught trying to join the Islamic State." How does that justify "It is actively engaged in conversion to Islam. Their members have incited violence publicly as part of Jihad and also have been alleged to have Terror Links with ISIS and engaged with Breaking India forces."? Doug Weller talk 09:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Agreed. It only justifies part of the statement - "members .... have been alleged to have Terror Links with ISIS". I will update with more reliable sources and discuss at WP:RSN as suggested. Thanks for your response. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid articles under sanctions while you learn your way around Wikipedia

Hi Dhawangupta. As you've already been formally notified, some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. There's far less tolerance for unfamiliarity with content and behavioral policy when working on such articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and concern. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABF

Your comments at Talk:Ayurveda #Suggestion to Shed Biases have strayed over the line into assuming bad faith. All claims of a biomedical nature in Wikipedia must be supported by high quality, secondary sources. Your advocacy of primary studies, especially those published in poor quality journals are becoming a time-sink for editors at that talk page. I am therefore giving you the only warning that you will now receive; if you continue this tendentious editing, I'll sanction you in order to prevent further disruption. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]