User talk:Anonymous19308

January 2023
Hello, I'm Bennv123. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Greatest Indian, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bennv123 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I will soon add the reference, next time please let me know before removing any added information as it would just make it easier to just add the reference. Anonymous19308 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." Considering the contentious claims your edit made about so-called "lower caste people", as well as living people like Ramachandra Guha and S. Anand, I cannot in good faith leave it up on Wikipedia unless it is verified by a reliable source. Bennv123 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there Mr Benny, first i sincerely apologise if I hurt your feelings, second in the comments above I was simply asking if I could be given some kind of warning, so that I could put my sources in. I am a working person with a job and have a life in which I take some time out of my day to contribute to this website. Furthermore, I think that there is no need to get so aggressive, I just felt that there was no need to have such an illiterate approach to me not adding sources, but in reality I was trying to be polite as I simply read an article by a verified and public source which talked about Ambedkar's rules being one-sided. I have put my sources below. Moreover, I could go and add this information but it is very sad to think that there are "keyboard warriors" like you out there to make peoples lives more difficult. Therefore, adding some factual and useful information can be difficult sometimes. Hopefully you can understand that sometimes it may take time to add sources and that this comment would allow you to understand that my material was not "poorly sourced" but factual and that the claims I made were indeed backed up by more than 1 verified source. Thank you for your time and understanding Mr. Benny. Please add them back to the page ;)
 * Here are my sources;
 * Menski, W. F. (February 1989). "The role of the judiciary in plural societies". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Cambridge University. 52 (1): 172–174. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00023600. S2CID 161754777.
 * Volume 4, Issue-3(5), March, 2017, "International Journal of Academic Research", Special issue on'AMBEDKAR AND INDIAN DEMOCRACY' ;http://ijar.org.in/stuff/issues/v4-i3(5)/v4-i3(5).pdf Anonymous19308 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) You did not hurt my feelings. 2) You should refrain from personal attacks like calling other editors "keyboard warriors", as violating WP:NPA could get you banned from editing Wikipedia. Discuss the content, not the editors. 3) My original post on your talk page was a boilerplate template, not a personal message against you. 3) I will not be restoring your content to the page as neither of these sources seem to say anything at all about "The Greatest Indian" poll. Please read WP:SYNTH. Bennv123 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ok... Anonymous19308 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Benny, for your information I had not combine sources I had made 2 separate points backed up by 2 different verified sources. Also you should refrain from personal attacks like calling other editors edits "contentious claims", as violating WP:NPA could get you banned from editing Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding Ben ;) Anonymous19308 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTH thoroughly (and the broader WP:OR). You combined two sources to make claims about The Greatest Indian poll, when neither source even mentions this poll. How can either source be used to support a claim about how the results of this poll were received, when neither source even mentions this poll? And no, saying the content of an edit had unsourced and contentious claims is not a personal attack; it is a comment on the content of the edit. Bennv123 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr Benny, I had not combined sources. There were 2 different points each point was backed up by its own research and verified sources. Furthermore, the 'poll' was never mentioned in my edit nor was I trying to discredit the 'poll'. But the 'edit' I made was to show how other critics may have disagreed with the result of the poll. Then I backed that up with how they thought that Ambedkar may have been one-sided. The 1st source suggests that other people disagreed. The 2nd source shows the reasons to why people may have disagreed. Anonymous19308 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) You were changing a passage that was already cited to other sources in the article. So you were combining your sources with those sources already cited in the article, so as to imply a conclusion about the results of the poll that none of the sources support. 2) If your edit does not mention, i.e. had nothing to do with, the poll, then why are you adding it to the “Results” section in an article that is explicitly about the poll? What relevance does you edit have in that case? 3) Neither of your sources backs up any claim that anyone disagrees with the results of the poll, because, again, none of them even mention the poll at all, much less whether they agree or disagree with it. For example, how can the first source “suggests that other people disagreed” with the results of the 2012 poll, when it was published in 1989? Decades before the poll even took place… Are you just assuming that the people who wrote the 1989 paper also disagree with the 2012 poll? Because that is a violation of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your sources may support a claim that there are people who disagree with this Ambedkar guy’s policies, but that’s not what this article is about though, is it? Criticisms about this guy’s policies can be added to appropriate pages (like Ambedkar’s own Wikipedia page or pages about his policies), if they are reliably sourced and not WP:UNDUE. But this article is specifically about The Greatest Indian poll and how the poll was regarded. Bennv123 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Bennv123. 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. Thank you. Bennv123 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)