User talk:PawanjiGupta

March 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Thakkar—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thnx PawanjiGupta (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PawanjiGupta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Klbrain (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx sir PawanjiGupta (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pushpa Kolhi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pushpa Kolhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Tatupiplu'^talk 15:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pushpa Kolhi

Hello Pawanji, I've proposed your recent article for deletion because her only claim to notability is some short term news coverage over a single event. If you disagree with this assessment, you may remove the deletion tag from the top of the article. If you ever have any questions about editing, come ask at the Teahouse – Thjarkur (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You're using the minor edit for far, far too many of your edits. Changes like this are NOT a minor edit. Please use the checkbox only when you're correcting a spelling error, removing obvious WP:VANDALISM or fixing a minor layout issue. Be careful about how you use the checkbox, it's considered disruptive to mis-use it as you've been doing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Ok sir i got itPawanjiGupta (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Koli people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir i got it PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to avoid seeing you blocked, I'd like to offer you some advice. We have a system of settling disputes over whether a particular source is reliable or not by seeking a range of opinions at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Over time some patterns of results have been observed and a very experienced editor has gathered those together at User:Sitush/CasteSources. You can consult that to help you understand the sort of sources that are very unlikely to be acceptable (for example the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency). Editors who edit-war to insert sources that have been deemed unusable in the past are quite likely to lose their editing privileges. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir PawanjiGupta (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathore

I have discussed about the citation you are trying to use with utcursch. You can see the conversation. Perhaps try finding another citation which gives a more clear statment to your claims.

Hi, I have tried reverting several attempts of this user on the "Rathore" article. He is using a religious book as a reference and the book itself talks more about the intermarrying of Koli's and Rajputs rather than calling them Koli's. Can you check once. Thanks.

Gutriel (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gutriel: The source seems to be fine, since it's a scholarly book published by Oxford University Press. But you're right - the book doesn't state that Rathore is a clan of Koli people - it talks of certain Koli sub-groups that claim Rajput descent, and states that one of the so-called "Rajput Koli Thakordas" are the Rathods of Ghanti and Vaghpur. These people presumably claim descent from Rathod Rajputs. utcursch | talk 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Gutriel (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, i will provide more reliable source soon PawanjiGupta (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions on Indian social groups

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

--regentspark (comment) 11:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raj sources

Please stop using them. I am pretty sure you will be blocked soon anyway because you seem likely to be socking again. I don't think you realise just how much the repeated deceitfulness of prolific sockpuppeting causes the world to think badly of the cause that the sock seeks to promote. In short, if you are socking, you are doing the Koli community no favours as they are tarred with the brush of being disruptive, mendacious and stupid (which I know most are not). - Sitush (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir i won't do that PawanjiGupta (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]