User talk:Pyaaz Kachori

Welcome, Pyaaz Kachori!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Pyaaz Kachori! I'm Sungodtemple, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hi Pyaaz Kachori! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hi Pyaaz Kachori! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You're marking nearly every edit as minor, and most of them are not. Please take a few moments and read WP:MINOR on what Wikipedia considers a minor edit. Generally, actual vandalism, spelling corrections or minor formatting fixes. If you're adding sources, new information or reverting another editors good-faith change, those are NOT minor edits and should not be marked as such. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will keep that in mind for next time. Thanks. Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Chauhan (surname), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have not just removed sourced content, but replaced it. Please note that you may add reliably sourced content, but you are not supposed to remove existing sourced content! Ekdalian (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mohammed Zubair (journalist). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedias WP:NPOV? Is Wikipedia has become a fanpage? Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me check about the Nobel Peace Prize topic. I'll get back to you — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And pls check about the him being a journalist. Here is his own tweet where cleared he is not a journalist, neither do he has a formal degree or education in journalism.

https://twitter.com/zoo_bear/status/1291416752971161601?t=jTjccJP6o7HR5fOoNtJnAw&s=19 Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the WP:RM template to the move discussion you started at Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist). That way, it will be treated as a proper move discussion, and will be listed at WP:RM#C.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Pyaaz Kachori, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghevar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rajasthani. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanda Kachori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Gukesh D. You should not be adding anything about his religion or his family's religion until you find a reliable source that discusses their religion. What you call obvious is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come source of book is unreliable? You reverted Preparation section of Pyaaz Kachori which was supported by citation of Tarla Dalal's book? Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding numerous citations to blogs, company marketing materials and such. Add only reliable sources (not a mix of reliable and unusable sourcing) and you should not have fruther problems. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on Ravindra Singh Bhati

If you don’t mind can i ask why you removed a section named criminal charges from that article ? Thanks. TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you literally created a separate section by copy pasting criminal charges from Affidavit submitted to election commission. That's not how it works. There are criminal charges on literally every politician but never seen any separate section for them directly copy pasted from affidavit. For eg. even Shashi Tharoor have 12 criminal charges on him do you see any separate section on his Wikipedia page mentioning them? And these charges on him from his college protests as president not some murder or something.Thanks Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, recently i have gone through WP:BLPCRIME and again Thanks for improving my mistake. Happy Editing TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pyaaz Kachori. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other account was solely used to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, and no actions were taken that violate Wikipedia's policies. Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with having different account names for Wikipedia and for Commons is that it it is easy to be unwittingly logged in to both Wikipedia and Commons with the same account, and to make edits on Wikipedia with the Commons account, and vice versa.

Pyaaz Kachori made 5 edits to Commons and 685 to en.Wikipedia.^[1]
PabIoChocobar made 17 edits to Commons and 3 to en.Wikipedia.^[2]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]