User talk:Decentscholar

January 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rajput has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rajput was changed by Decentscholar (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880509 on 2015-01-13T11:13:35+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Faisalabad
Hi Decentscholar, I noticed that you removed large chunks from Faisalabad. Yes, what you wrote was not bad, however you deleted nearly all information contributed by countless editors. FYI, there is an established structure of city-related articles, you can familiarise yourself with it at WP:CITSTRUCT. As you can see, all the info you removed has a valid place in a city-related article. For now, I restored the previous version, and I suggest any such large-scale changes should be submitted for discussion on the Talk page. Regards,  kashmiri TALK  10:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm Pcfan500. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Faisalabad without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! pcfan500 (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rajput
I have just reverted your most recent edit at Rajput. Using the format "Despite the fact ..." is point-y and should usually be avoided because it casts aspersions. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making me aware of WP:Point, but Encyclopedia Britannica says so, its not my personal opinion. Decentscholar (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that it was your opinion. There is simply no need for it - it lays an emphasis on something that then infers a different emphasis on other things. WP:NPOV kicks in as well, you see. I've no idea why EB do it as they do but that is their business and this is ours. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, but actually the structure of origins section needs improvement, it seems confusing somehow, The paragraph should commence with exactly what the discussion is about. This would render it sensible. if you think my last edit was somehow a defamation, we may commence saying The Rajputs claim Kshatriya ancestry but this is also a subject of debate. I think it would be compatible with the source EB as well, and we'll also go compatible with wikipedia guidelines Decentscholar (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, but actually the structure of origins section needs improvement, it seems confusing somehow, The paragraph should commence with exactly what the discussion is about. This would render it sensible. if you think my last edit was somehow a defamation, we may commence saying The Rajputs claim Kshatriya ancestry but this is also a subject of debate. I think it would be compatible with the source EB as well, and we'll also go compatible with wikipedia guidelines Decentscholar (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you would need to discuss that on the talk page. You are giving emphasis to the Rajput claim and that doesn't seem right to me. The existing opening sentence, on the other hand, exactly explains what the thing is about, ie: different opinions exist. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 220  of  Borg 12:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gujar Khan, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". This edit also appeared to be un-sourced. 220  of  Borg 12:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! 220  of  Borg 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, I'm Mahensingha. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Rajput Groups because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Linked article do not give sufficient grounds to be added to the target template  Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rajput. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Sitush (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * There has long been a trend on Wikipedia that, when it comes to editors working in the India sphere, those whose usernames include words such as "truth", "scholar" and "historian" are usually ignorant of our policies, unwilling to follow them and ultimately destructivetive disruptive. More often than not, they edit articles relating to Rajput and in my experience, they always end up getting blocked. You are following that trend, which is a shame.


 * You can either buck it by beginning to work collaboratively and within the scope of our policies etc or you can face the inevitable consequences of your actions. Since, thus far, you are just being a complete pain in the backside in your determination to have your own way, please take note of the information below. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Replaced "destructive" with "disruptive" - a Freudian slip, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * you're trying to impose your own way, I'm not. why do u teach others about consensus when you yourself don't do it! isn't this hypocrisy? in addition, the point I am editing now, oppose to the fact i wrote reason in edit summary |here you never provided any reason for that. tell me why are you putting wrong source for your stance! really when did britannica mention the 12th century? so i am telling you the real source and also providing you the statement in line with the source, not only you are using wrong source for this point but you're also being incompatible with the source! Decentscholar (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You've done it again! James Tod is a featured article, I pretty much wrote the entire thing and the point of the quotation in Rajput was because too many Rajput contributors were trying to use Tod as a source. You, like them, seem to have a pretty substantial pro-Rajput bias. It needs to stop. Now. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your other point, it looks like Britannica has changed its article but I cannot see where you explained that the source had changed. This effectively fixes the issue and is in conformance with WP:LEAD, in particular the guidance that quotes and citations should be avoided in lead sections except where absolutely necessary. I'd much rather have this conversation at Talk:Rajput than here - if you want to continue to discus the content issues, rather than behavioural, then please could you do so there. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all biased, your new edits are satisfactory. but I have issues with Jason freitag wording, which I am gonna discuss on Rajput talk page! Decentscholar (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, I'm Mahensingha. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Rajput Groups because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Taoni
Please stop edit warring at Taoni. You are reinstating unsourced statements. Even the source that is there does not support the claim. The burden is on the person who adds info to ensure that it satisfies our verifiability policy and, given the amount of puffery that goes on at caste-related articles, we really must insist on it. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note this was good information or apparently looks true are not valid rationales to add information here on Wikipedia, as you have done here. Please support your content with reliable secondary sources. Please discuss on article talk page. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits at Rajput
Have you read the source? You are on very thin ice with your various changes, for which it is evident you do not have consensus on the article talk page. You have been made aware of the discretionary sanctions already. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I've read the sources. The words 'many' and 'close relationship' are a POV. I've put in the precise words. Decentscholar (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean you have quoted the source? Or is it just your interpretation of precision? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean I quoted the source. Decentscholar (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have quoted the source then you have to show it as a quote, not as a paraphrase. See WP:COPYRIGHT. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * well I didn't mean I wrote as it was, I meant according to what the source is exactly saying. Decentscholar (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rajput
How many more times do you think you are going to be disruptive at Rajput before you get blocked? - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have same question from you! u would have to be reasonable I guess. look at the rationale I've provided.

Decentscholar (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your recent editing history at Rajput shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * yes come to talk page and let's discuss but don't undo my edit until consensus because apparently you are unaware of fundamentals of politics Decentscholar (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing on Rajput. You can't remove sourced content with arguments like "i have detailed knowledge on this, it is not authentic, i can find u conflicting authority". On Wikipedia, it's not what you know from your own conviction, but what you can source from reliable sources. It's pointless to say "I can find you conflicting authority": you have to supply that conflicting authority and give other editors, as well as our readers, a chance to evaluate it. Also before you get to push through your preferred version, you need consensus for it. Consensus is established on the talkpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * pleas block me forever. thank you very much. should i provide u diffs of how biased sitush is! how ironic it is that my other arguments are of no value, I had two points and defending only one, which is not seen by the learned admin. Decentscholar (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your other arguments, whatever they may have been, might be of value. The problem is that you didn't present them, other than a vague suggestion in an edit summary that you know of sources that contradict the ones that were used. You cannot simply keep removing material that on the face of it is not only reliably sourced but has multiple sources. You should have gone straight to the talk page, and certainly so after your first removal was reverted. Worse, there were two people reverting you and that puts you in a bad light. Accusing people of sockpuppetry without any supporting evidence further compounds the problem and, for the sake of clarity, the socking accusation is incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mahensingha. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rajput seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please attend the discussion on talk page of the article Rajput Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Governor Salman Taseer and Rana Muhammad Akram Khan Chairman Punjab Bar Council.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Governor Salman Taseer and Rana Muhammad Akram Khan Chairman Punjab Bar Council.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chaudhry Abdus Salam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chaudhry Abdus Salam 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 Articles for deletion/Chaudhry Abdus Salam 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 until the discussion has finished. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Farah Ejaz Baig for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Farah Ejaz Baig 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 Articles for deletion/Farah Ejaz Baig 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 until the discussion has finished. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)