User talk:Parthasarathy B

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Parthasarathy B, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, this edit does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Slp1 (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello
I see that you have recently become active on Wikipedia. Welcome!! Thank you for your contributions. I wanted, however, to draw your attention to a few of the policies that we have here, since some of your edits suggest that you may not be aware of them. First, it is important that any additions be of neutral point of view. This is not the place to try and promote your views or your organization, so these kinds of edits are problematic. Second, edits need to be verifiable to reliable sources. This means things we add should be sourced from newspapers and books and that we can't generally use blogs and webpages as sources of information. Any information we include needs to be in the reference cited: in this edit, for example, you included information about "failed wives" etc that isn't in the sources cited and deleted the "modern suprakarnas" "modern day sadists" which are. Third, we are not allowed to include our own research and thoughts about matters here. In this edit and this edit  you put together various pieces of information to make a point, which is not allowed here  per no original research. In the last case for example, nowhere in the references from the Times of India or www.498 does it talk about SIF and what they believe. Finally, from your edits it seems that you might be involved in Save Indian Family, since you have added many links and information about them. If you are a member, you should read this information about how to edit with a conflict of interest WP:COI.

I hope this helps you to understand why some of your edits have been reverted and changed. Please let me know if I can be of any help in this matter.--Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Parthasarathy,

I realize that the rules are complicated here, but appears that I wasn't clear enough with the issues described above, so let me try again. It is important to follow them WP's policies so that you run don't into troubles.
 * It is required that we accurately reflect what the sources say: This change you made  does not reflect the reliable source which talks about "spearheading the bill"  not encouragement to use.
 * It is required of us that we are of neutral point of view. In this edit, you have added "(mis)use" which adds unnecessary point of view.
 * It is required of us not to try to prove a point here. This edit  is called original research and synthesis, because you take points from various sources and add them together to make a new one.  If you want to add this sentence you need to find a reference which has SIF talking about the dowry system, extortion, upper and lower class women, not linking together references as you did: all but one of which don't talk about SIF at all, and none of them make exactly the point you have included.  There is the same original research problem with this edit  since none of the refs you give mention SIF at all, and one is a blog post in any case. It is also not of NPOV.
 * High quality sources are required and this blogpost does not qualify as a reliable source in WP terms.

Please take the time to review Wikipedia's editing policies and ensure your editing complies with them. If you need any help or advice I would be happy to help in any way. Just leave a message here, or on the discussion page of the article concerned.Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Several of your recent edits continue to be problematic. I'm not clear if you truly don't understand the policies here: if this is the case, please edit this talkpage to ask for clarification and I or others will be happy to respond. However, please consider that if you continue to add material contrary to Wikipedia policies, you will be blocked from editing. Here are the details of which edits are inappropriate and why:
 * In this edit you have reintroduced original research and synthesis. None of these references, , mention Save Indian Family at all. You need to find a reference that states that "SIF points out the judicial paradox by punishing only the taker (usually an innocent male)"
 * In this edit you added more original research.  The reference you gave, a news story about a divorcing couple make none of the points you make.  Another editor as already removed it as non-verifiable original research.
 * Blog posts such as this and this   and this  are not reliable sources and cannot be used to verify edits. Many of the references you give do not even contain the information that you claim it does. For example this post  contains nothing about women leaving marriage as you claim here
 * Edits must be of neutral point of view and neutral editing is required of all editors. Statements such as "SIF points out the judicial paradox by punishing only the taker ( usually an innocent male ), when the prosecutor is also a partner in the crime, as giver. They also point out that with the inevitably increasing divorce rates in India, and the extraordinarily long time it takes in India to obtain a legal divorce, these laws give more leverage for extra-judicial extortion by wives encouraged to misuse legislation are not acceptable.[  Nor is this one.
 * You cannot copy and paste material from other websites. In this edit you add a word for word copy of material from this website..  This is not permitted per WP:COPYVIO.

I have tried to explain why you cannot make these kinds of edits in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a soapbox for you to promote your own opinions and beliefs. I would encourage you to communicate with other editors either here or on the talkpage of the articles that you want to edit and make your suggestions for changes there. That way, other editors can help you as you learn the rather complex rules and regulations. However, I must warn you again that if you continue to contravene editing policies, it is likely that you will be prevented from editing in order to protect the project. I beg you to pay attention. --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Futility
I'm sure that you have read the warnings above.

It should be added that using Wikipedia for WP:OR and WP:POV crusades is ultimately futile. Whilst you are here, your edits will be (and have been) reverted in a warlike fashion. As your editing pattern persists, others will be further obliged to unconditionally revert all of your edits to contentious articles due to the likelihood that they are damaging Wikipedia's encyclopedic value. Whilst you are not here (and by this, I mean after a month at most), the effects your promotional editing strategy would have been 95% reverted, and editors will have flagged the articles you have edited for further disruption. forestPIG(grunt) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Promotional links
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. ' Cailil'''   talk 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see NOTADVERTISING material that falls under this site's definition of promotional material will be removed from articles - if it is repeatedly re-added the user(s) responsible will be blocked from editing this site. Please familiarize your self with wikipedia's core policies and practices (see WP:5) so you can be sure what material should be added to articles. Thank you-- Cailil  talk 14:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)