User talk:Pratap Pandit

Welcome

Hello, Pratap Pandit, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! A a s i m 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

This is an official welcome. Thanks for your edits so far. I do not know why that user filed a bad EW report, but I think you may get a kick at some of the activities on this site. A a s i m 16:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2020 Palghar mob lynching, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Don’t add personal commentaries like all culprits were Hindus. No reliable source claimed it till now. Brihaspati (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GreaterPonce665. Please do not add duplicate information. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2020 Palghar mob lynching, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important information. The abstract needs this. Remove the entire abstract if you think it is duplicate

Policy violations

From your editing behaviour on Rangoli Chandel and 2020 Palghar mob lynching, it seems you’re violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. You’re encouraging islam-apologetic agenda through editing. Doing this repeatedly can loose your editing privileges and can lead to on block you. Please follow policies. — Brihaspati (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding truth along with reference as you asked, and you are deleting it wrongly. It is you must be blocked.

Please be Kind. We all are humans here. We don’t add truth; we add verifiable facts here. Brihaspati (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the proof of the fact in form of news site. I am following the rules. Stop blocking me.

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Palghar mob lynching 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. Brihaspati (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you deleted my edits ? why ? You said "not suitable for WP:LEAD"

LEAD definition is copied below.

The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

What are you removing is the most important information of the article ? The abstract or the lead needs this information. So I ask you to add that line back into the lead. Are you working for BJP ?

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This is personal attack. Brihaspati (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack ? I asked some questions. Please answer.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pratap_Pandit reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: ). Thank you. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Hey, I see you've got a few warnings from people. While of cource you make some mistakes as a new editor, I hope you decide to stay! (By the way, please don't call people "BJP agents", that can be considered offensive.) Happy editing! MrClog (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog, Thank you. Can you please look into my edits and point me the actual problem, so that I can avoid repeating it. I think all these are false warnings, added to scare me off by brow beating. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_) If you look into the edits you will find that these users are doing exactly, what BJP is doing. So I asked him to make it clear, but he did not reply yet. In my defence, I did not call them anyone's agent. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my welcome message? :D A a s i m 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if you'd like, I can archive (i.e. remove from the talk page) the warnings for you. Is that okay? A a s i m 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aasim, Thanks a lot for the kind welcome message. I saw it and wanted to reply but I have only 2 hands and I had to type comments on so many places so I thought I will respond to you once I am free from those more important things, lest I could be blocked. Yes please remove all these false warnings from this page. I dont want to keep any archive for such false warnings. The administrator has already warned these people about these false warnings here on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_) Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Pandit, stop attacking us that we are working for BJP. That is personal attack and we all are volunteers here. You are not supposed to comment on contributors. Follow WP:Civility.-- Brihaspati (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, I am behaving in a very civil manner, though I cannot say the same about you, KartikMistry and GreaterPonce665. I asked a very obvious Question based on your editing and suppression of valid information from that article. Instead of answering my straight question you resorted to all kinds of theatrics and arm twisting tactics, that an administrator had to intervene and call you out on it. It all actually confirms my suspicion. Now I want you to respond to my comments on the article talk page, where you have still not replied. Those discussions, I believe are more important. Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any personal attacks, so I think it would be better to assume good faith. Not assuming good faith is disruptive. Remember to comment on content, not contributors. Also, provide links if you are making such accusations. That way, the editor can actually learn. Brihaspati You can remember the comment left on WP:AN/EW? aggressive warnings is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Please provide evidence of problematic edits before making accusations. A a s i m 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awesome Aasim Are you addressing me or Brihaspati, can you clarify ?Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was for Brihaspati. That is why I pinged them. They are blocked now, you can ignore that comment :) A a s i m 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, thanks, since you mentioned his name in the middle of your statements instead of the beginning, so I was wondering if you were addressing me. He was threatening to block me while engaging in sanctionable behavior himself and making bogus reports to administrator RegentsPark. Usedtobecool explained that he was blocked for different reason. I think this is poetic justice. I saw their block notice, where user Doug Weller posted a link to a thread, with a Huffington Post interview of this user, introducing himself as an RSS worker. This confirms that my suspicions were indeed right and that also explains why he was over reacting and calling me Islam apologist, when I asked him why he was removing my valid edits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: only admins can block users. There are only 1000 admins, and most Wikipedia contributors are not admins. Admins are trusted to not use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute (like what you were engaged in). That contributor who was blocked was not an admin. If you focus on improving Wikipedia without causing any problems, you will be fine :) A a s i m 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bayttaab Dil Kee Tamanna Hai

You edited back dead links i edited, adding new information, citing advertisement, can you please explain how you find those links as advertisement, or any kind of promoted content in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealtylor (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a news site. Why are you adding them ? Now another user removed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayttaab_Dil_Kee_Tamanna_Hai&diff=next&oldid=952755042&diffmode=source Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to confirm if any site is a news site. As there are several newspapers registered and powerful regionally. Please explain on what standards a publication is understood worthy enough. Nealtylor (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nealtylor, I think if the newspaper is very popular and lot of people know its name then it can be accepted. Job sites are not newspapers, I hope you will agree with the removal. This link has more explanation on what sites are allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guidence. I guess need a mentor to properly understand reliable source guidelines. As india is so diverse, and high population. how much population is enough to call it populor. As even if a single kannada newspaper cover only one major city in Karnataka. It will have readership of crores. But editor being from north india may judge it not reliable. Is there any email or contact board to get help or only talk page is there. Nealtylor (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That my friend is a very good question. It is very good because even I dont know the answer. Please ask the more experienced people on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thankyou. See you know Saamna newspaper by shiv sena then national herald by Indian national congress Saamna is even mkre popular then its own circulation. Lokmat is only Marathi. The hitwad i know is some ofnoldest newspaper but no popularity. Therefore i insisted to understand senario. Can i ask you for guidence in future edits? Nealtylor (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can message me, but you must know that I am still understanding the Wikipedia related process and things. Accordingly I feel you may be better served by asking someone else. If there is anything I know, I will be more than happy to help. Please see the Welcome message by Aasim above, those links will answer most of the questions that may have. I found them very useful. Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nealtylor: WP:RSN is a good place to ask about reliablity. Some of the major sources are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk

Discretionary sanctions notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 10:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Pandit, shiny, isn't it? Look! The header says "notice". Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, indeed, and it came exactly as you had predicted on the Teahouse. Thank you for patiently explaining about these alerts, or else I would have assumed this as Doug Weller reading the riot act. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got some good advice there. Regents Park and Bishonen are excellent Admins. I admit I've been busy handing out these alerts, but they're clearly needed. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that anyone can hand out alerts, not just those of us (like me) who are Admins. You can find out more about me on my user page. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, while you are at it, you might want to hand out one of those shiny ones to GreaterPonce665, who I believe was working alongside the other user in posting false warnings and filing bogus admin reports to intimidate me. I totally agree that they are needed. Having taken the full burnt of hostility, I can now appreciate why the admins need to hand out these alerts on a wholesale manner. All said, I must also add that based on my own observation, the friendly and supportive users and admins here clearly outnumber the hostile ones. I guess this is good omen. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pratap Pandit, please know that I didn't file bogus admin report. There was quite significant edit warring happening on that Palghar mob violence page and I just wanted to bring veteran editors to calm tensions and bring in sanity. Please notify if you want someone to know they are being discussed about. Also, there is no hostility on my end. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you explain on the talk page as expected, why you were edit warring to remove the line? No. Did you answer my question when you falsely put threatening messages here ? No. You all only stopped your edit warring after MrClog intervened and commented there. The Bogus report has your name as filer, so it is clearly you, you filed it. Administrator RegentsPark has already given his verdict on your bogus admin report along with a warning to the filer, that was you, to stop this nonsense. You should read his statement if you have not read it yet. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that it was not bogus (I'm not denying that I filed it, I felt it was a valid request). My edits were explained with edit summary and I have always assumed good faith attitude. While we may disagree over validity of edits, it is up to the admins to intervene in disputes; Admin felt differently and that's fine. Again, you are not assuming good faith here. I have no quarrel with you. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was completely bogus, why else did the Administrator rejected your bogus report ? Please read and follow the long explanation the admin wrote while rejecting your bogus report. Why don't you tell me about your bad faith that led you to file the bogus report. Your actions speak louder than your words--Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in engaging here, you are not willing to assume good faith, whatever I have to say will not reach you. Don't take it personally. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreaterPonce665, I am asking you a straight question and I expect an honest answer. I am giving you a chance to come clean, so you dont really need to be evasive. Why did you file this admin report against me ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pratap Pandit! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Are BLP policies also applicable on Talk page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bulandshahr Sadhu murder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bulandshahr Sadhu murder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulandshahr Sadhu murder until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite, why are you deleting this article. This is a major Issue in India and everyone is talking about it. It is all over the news. Please see 2020 Palghar mob lynching a similar article on Wikipedia. Please remove the delete message. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pratap Pandit. While I do appreciate that you are contributing in good faith, I think it may be good for you to create a draft page. To do so, you can visit this page and follow the instructions. Cheers! A a s i m 01:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note – a nomination for deletion does not guarantee a page is deleted, it just means that an editor thinks there is a problem with the article that should be addressed. A a s i m 01:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim ok, I explained on the thread and asked them not to delete this. It would be a bummer if this gets deleted. Fingers crossed. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pratap Pandit! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help these users are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]