Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rayabhari (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 3 July 2013 (→Removal of three paragraphs from Arvind Kajriwal article: ok :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion

Overcategorisation

There was no need for this. He is already designated as an Indian politician because Category:1st Lok Sabha members etc are all sub-categories of Category:Indian politicians, ie: anyone who is listed in the former is automatically a part of the latter. This is standard Misplaced Pages practice but I can't recall the policy/guideline that covers it right now - it is nearly 2 am here & I really should be in bed. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

oh! I wasn't aware of the sub-category and overcategorisation ! Thanks of enlightening/notifying me ! Good night..! Sitush ...! ThinkingYouth (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and

Hi. Thank you for your observation. But, after my correction, it is reverted by user Sitush. . . is there any confusion? Can you please check?Rayabhari (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User:PrivateMasterHD, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shazia Ilmi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a-prominent-team-anna-member/|date=August 02,2012}accessdate=June 18,2013|work=Biharprabha News}}</ref>Later,her MA in the Mass Communication from MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia in 1994. She studied

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shahid Kapoor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• indiatimes.com/articleshow/2811899.cms|publisher='']''|accessdate=2008-07-07}}</ref>)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

ECI

The ECI document referred to here is already in the article. You really, really should not use bold and big font etc as you have just done - it makes the talk page awkward to read. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay ,it's fix .TY of 09:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WHy Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is making fuss about it , when Gazzate Notification is already added/edited in the article by you Sitush??? .regards TY of 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shazia Ilmi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Somnath Bharti

Please do not edit war at Somnath Bharti. You have a clear agenda to "push" the Aam Aadmi Party across various articles, you are doing so sometimes in defiance of policy and in the case of the image at Commons you should be aware that it has already been deleted twice for copyright/permission reasons and will almost certainly be deleted again for the same reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Your recent editing history at Somnath Bharti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aam Aadmi Party. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are on 4 reverts on the Somnath Bharti, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)‎

You have gone over on Aam Aadmi Party also. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

you've asked for source ,added one.Is that count revert Sitush  ?? . Pls Discuss at concern Article talk page, not here. - TY of 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Somnath Bharti

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ThinkingYouth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is bit harsh and bias decision.You let off sitush for same 3RR citing copyvio edits (what was the copyvio ,dob , wikilinks of IIT delhi or image uploaded by a third uninvolved editor and why it is copyvio , bcos sitush say so ) and booked me ,accused me of harming WP articles. I don't think so i was harming the wiki by adding date of birth to Somnath Bharti.I've asked for fellow editors to discuss the matter as WP:BPLPRIMARY doesn't allow public documents to cite as source to confirm dob.As for the source of dob , WP articles need time to evolve(I do have public document to establish dob but i can't use as source) and sitush ,deleting everything i add like thy own the WP is not at all acceptable.I don't get why thy gave me warning when i clearly cited the same reasons and asked them to discuss that issue at concern talk page.I waited for the fellow editors to enlighten me about/on how i can confirm BLP somnath bharti dob without using public documents,but nobody replied? and Admin accused me of not listening .SOrry but WP admin are biased . TY of 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no bias. You reverted more than three times to continue adding unsourced information to a BLP. The desired state is for the discussion to progress without the information, rather than with. As long as you are confused about this, unblocking you would seem to be a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Removal of three paragraphs from Arvind Kajriwal article

Hi. Just wanted to draw your attention towards one of your edits. In article Arvind Kejriwal, you removed a large chunk of article by giving reason -Polkhol section shud be in Aam Aadmi Party page , not here. But, the incidents explained in these three/four paragraphs occurred in October 2012, when Aam Admi Party did not exist. So, I think, the large chunk removed by you should have been in its original place. Please think and do the needful. Alternatively, you can add it to Aam Admi Party, but then it may be contested by other editors that the incidents were before the formation of the party. (Aam Aadmi Party was formally launched on 26 November 2012.) All the best.Rayabhari (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The chances are very high that the paragraphs which were removed were (a) copyright violations and (b) inappropriate for reasons connected to WP:BLP. They were accusations made by Kejriwal etc but, if I remember correctly, no legal action or similar had occurred. As such, they impact negatively on the people named and most likely are unacceptable anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Rayabhari (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)