User talk:Shail kalp

Edit summaries
Please be careful that your edit summaries accurately reflect what you are actually doing. In this edit, you described your revert of MatthewVanitas as "Revert unexplained blanking". However, MatthewVanitas had left a very clear edit summary in his previous edit ("Rv series of changes: per Talk, the list of numbered points for Rajput ancestry is WP:UNDUE, also the info is just jammed into "Coronation", so should not be there unless a smoother transition is worked in"); furthermore, he had been discussing the issue on Talk for several days before that. In a later edit summary you again reverted MatthewVanitas, using the phrase, "cannot blank whole article", but, of course, this was not anything close to the article--only one section of it. I'm willing to assume you just made mistakes in those summaries, but regularly making wrong edit summaries makes it look like you're trying to be deceptive. At this point, MV has also expressed some very specific concerns about this addition on the article's talk page, so the proper thing to do is to discuss it there until you reach WP:CONSENSUS (which may well involve compromise on both sides), not just edit war to try to get the article to look the way you want it. Finally, you may want to take a look at WP:NPOV, which is one of our core policies. It says that any time a theory is debated in the real world, we must present all sides verified by reliable sources. Now, if you had a source that said "Non-Rajput theories have been thoroughly discredited" or something like that, then we could leave out those theories, or cut them down to a very small sentence, but if the issue is still being debated, we have to include multiple perspectives. You may not know as a new member of Wikipedia (or, at least, a newly registered account), but articles in WP cannot be written to just follow one group/country/castes/etc. perspective--it has to include a variety of perspectives, as long as those perspectives are backed by reliable sources that show that they are at least somewhat widely held (i.e., that they are not fringe theories). If you have any questions, feel free to post them here if they're about WP policies, or on the article's talk page if about info specific to Shivaji. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Only warning for personal attacks
Only warning: making personal attacks, like you just did against me at Talk:Shivaji is strictly forbidden by WP:NPA. Do it again and I'll ask another admin to block you. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Shivaji with this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you, Trusilver  06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello there, I'm an administrator here at Wikipedia and I've looked at the discussion linked above, and also at your edits. I'm now formally asking you to stop your current style of editing, in particular your personal attacks on other editors. If you continue, then I will block you in order to protect the encyclopaedia from disruption.


 * You are clearly a knowledgable person with much to offer here. However you will need to learn about how WP works if your stay is to be harmonious and productive. Please do read some of what Qwyrxian has said to your elsewhere about reliable sources and do try to use talk pages a bit more efficiently - your walls of text make it hard for people to understand you, even when you may be in the right! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation Styles
I would recommend you look at the edit I have made to the Battle of Chillianwala, in which I have expanded your citations. You might also read Citing sources. A cite consisting entirely of a link to an Amazon listing or similar runs the risk of the link disappearing without warning for any of several copyright, legal or commercial reasons, also removing all information about the source. (This may be an unlikely event, but is always possible.) I am also a little wary of relying on a quote from a book which is a compendium of just about all battles from several centuries and can at best skim the subject of any individual conflict, when much more detailed sources are available. However, while in this particular battle the British strengths and casualties were accurately recorded, I have yet to see any account of Sikh strengths and casualties which is not POV in one direction or the other, so I will let your cites stand, though any subsequent editor may choose to overwrite them. HLGallon (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BLOCKED
some fool has blocked me and has given the reason of Multiple accounts abuse but for what, plz help the user who has banned me cites nothing, i am sure that some personal interests behind editing is the reason.Shail kalp (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)