User talk:Arghyan Opinions

June 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at M. S. Golwalkar. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my response by mistake. Please be more careful. If you revert again without waiting for consensus then you run the chance of being blocked from editing. --Neil N  talk to me 16:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How to warn an editor who consistently deletes whatever I write?
I have learned that before reporting vandalism, I must deliver warnings to the user or editor who is creating trouble. But how to send the warnings? Arghyan Opinions (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the help me tag up but you need to read WP:NOTVAND. The edits of the other user you're currently involved in a dispute with are not vandalism. --Neil N  talk to me 04:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Neil, this is now an extreme point. I am not schizophrenic, and I am not thinking about Indopug all the time. I want the truth to come out. So even when I make an innocent technical query, please don't think I have got some secret agenda regarding other editors. I AM NOT THAT EVIL. Finally, I want to draw your attention towards the recent history of my activities. Since you warned me, I have not modified anything whatsoever in the M.S. Golwalkar page. When I am obeying a senior mentor like you, then why are you doubting that I may suddenly bring a baseless charge against someone? Last but not least, I want to say that I am attached with Wikipedia as a contributor from 2012, or even earlier. Wikipedia is very vital for me. You can block me if you think I am acting in bad faith or intentionally breaking rules. I will be very happy in that case. But please always remember that to err is human (And I think Indopug also is a human, not god). I respect Wikipedia's spirit. And that is why I am doggedly after the issue, which I am not understanding. I am not understanding that why do I have to quote impartial sources when I am directly presenting views of supporters/admirers/followers/critics and/or opponents of a person. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for assuming what your intentions were. You warn users by adding templates to their talk page. See Warn_vandalism. Alternatively, you can use an automated gadget like WP:TWINKLE (this is what I use). --Neil N  talk to me 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize Neil, that will make my situation even more pathetic. Rather I am sorry if I ever used harsh language with anyone ... Wikipedia is my passion. This may sound strange because I seldom contribute. The reality is that I read Wikipedia almost day in and day out. And i take hundreds of pages in print out from Wikipedia every year (maybe I am addicted, LOL). And rather I am thankful for your speedy understanding of my good faith. May be I am getting emotional and that's why my tone is faltering. You can always rephrase (or delete with explanation) whatever I write after I propose my final edit at M.S.Golwalkar Talk Page. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to know if Wikipedia needs any contribution for new/controversial pages
Once upon a time, I used to get notifications from Wikipedia that certain pages needed to be improved. But today, no such notifications are sent. May I please receive some notifications on what Wikipedia needs? For example, maybe somewhere in Wikipedia a new article has been started but contents are not so up-to-the-minute. How can I receive notices or find out such pages and articles in Wikipedia? Naturally, those corners of the Wikipedia are less known and thus less attended. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Arghyan Opinions. You can find many lists of articles that need different types of improvement here: Backlog. Does this help? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much dear Neil. A great place to read and study. Actually, hundreds and thousands of youths today practically think that whatever Wikipedia says is true (even me). Anguish is building up against world class universities that why they don't allow Wikipedia to be referenced. In my professional life, I have seen many universities are gradually changing their views. Even certain engineering colleges in Europe sometimes instruct their students to start their research work from Wikipedia (of course, I can't openly write their names due to professional reasons). Thank you for providing me large amount of information on POV guidance in a single go. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of our articles are better than others (examples: WP:FA, WP:GA, and medical articles). For academic research purposes, the true value of Wikipedia is as a starting point (as you say) and an article's list of references. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)