User talk:PSDA1

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Osmanabad district—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Osmanabad. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Silikonz💬 17:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aurangabad, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bajrang Dal. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

RegentsPark (comment) 18:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PSDA1!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove UTC from the page. I just added IST with them. Please tell me how is that creating accessibility and readability problems? PSDA1 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Rehsarb. 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 Ram Mandir 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. Rehsarb (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm Grabup. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Sacnilk is not a reliable source, Wikipedia is based on Reliable sources. Read WP:ICTFSOURCES before adding any sources to Indian film related articles. Grabup (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, you may be blocked from editing. Why you reverted my edit without any note? I already told you that Sacnilk is not a reliable source. Read WP:ICTFSOURCES Grabup (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your contributions to article Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film) did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is more reliable, 6 critics' reviews who gave 4/10 rating or audiences' reviews who gave 92% ratings? PSDA1 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Rotten Tomatoes is a famous review aggregator, you can’t remove it. Grabup (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't just add critics' reviews add audiences' reviews as well PSDA1 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes is consired as reliable as per WP:ROTTEN. You can’t remove it. Audience reviews are not added because As per WP:IMDB, IMDB or any site which shows audience reviews are User Generated website, so they are not a reliable source to cite or show. Grabup (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And only 6 people are? PSDA1 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to raise the question about the reliablity of Rotten Tomatoes then you can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and start a discussion on it. But for now Wikipedia don’t show audience reviews as they are user generated. Grabup (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see here the list of all 6 reviewers, who they are and why we accept their reviews as reliable. They are from news websites which are also considered as generally reliable sources. Grabup (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! PSDA1 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Filminformation.com is an unreliable source. Don’t cite unreliable sources at Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Filminformation.com is not even on the list of unreliable sources

Secondly, I don't think Komal Nahta is an unreliable person.

So please let me undo your changes. PSDA1 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus of the website to be reliable. It is like a blog website. Same like Koimoi, Tellychakkar, and Filmibeat. Grabup (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what, you did not have any problem for the last two weeks collections, but now you're having one? Moreover, you can check Komal Nahta's page too, he has worked with Taran Adarsh as well. PSDA1 (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Nahta, the article may fails WP:GNG major sources are found other than Forbes India, which is itself a quationable source.

Thanks for telling me that you have also used Filminformation.com to the article previously, The cited articles don’t attribut or mentioned any author and how can you say that these articles are written by Komal Nahta? If you want to check the reliablity of the source than start a discussion on Indian cinema task force. Grabup (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really not check who operates that website? PSDA1 (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSDA1, That does’not metter, Republic World is also managed by big notable so-called journalists but it is blocked on Wikipedia to cite. Grabup (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the person who gave interviews on Zee, NDTV, Doordarshan and many more "reliable" sources is "not reliable"? PSDA1 (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Intervews build crediblity? Who says that? I started a discussion to the Indian Cinema Task force about this source. Grabup (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, now I understand, there's no point in giving references even if the website provides facts, and the so called discussion... is not even worth it. I won't edit the page anymore. PSDA1 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See at the discussion. Other editors are agreed with me, this website is not a reliable source at all. Grabup (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, even if the website clearly shows the box office collection, nobody here will believe it. Thanks sir. PSDA1 (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSDA1, It is an unreliable source, no editorial team, running on the name of a single person. Wikipedia is not a joke, we check reliablity of sources before we can trust them as reliable. Grabup (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I have definitely observed that. PSDA1 (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]