User talk:CrusaderForTruth2023

T

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Cycle Tracks in Uttar Pradesh have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Sitush (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am a student of this institute . Recent developements cant be given citations till they are completed . 06:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If citations cannot be provided, facts should not be listed. Please familiar yourself with WP:V. Fail to do so and you WILL be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Muhandes (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--regentspark (comment) 11:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Narendra Modi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Tyler Durden (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Narendra Modi.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind and discuss on the article's talk page for any further concerns. Tyler Durden (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring across multiple articles. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have only short term blocked you now, take this time to read through our policies. On expiration of your block, please follow those policies. If you continue this behavior after your block expires then your editing privileges may be withdrawn completely. —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Stephen C. Meyer‎. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit to File:Amritpaloriginalindiatoday.webp has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. utcursch | talk 07:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read above message carefully: you cannot upload copyrighted images from other websites to Wikipedia. Also, please see WP:LABEL: Wikipedia guidelines recommend against using contentious terms such as "terrorist". If you still think that the page should be moved, please submit a move request, instead of trying to create a duplicate article. utcursch | talk 07:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You cannot download copyright images, combine them into a new image, and claim the new image to be your own work. Derivative works of copyrighted works are not free. utcursch | talk 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Both images are free (One is from a public profile by the person in article and second under a freely shareable Creative Commons license) No copyrighted work is involved) 07:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Image from "a public profile" is not free for use on Wikipedia. Please go through Wikipedia:Copyrights linked above. Any image you find on the internet is copyrighted, by international agreement, unless its copyright is explicitly disclaimed or unless it falls into public domain. utcursch | talk 07:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

He is an activist fighting to bring peace and health back into Punjab. Please stop spreading fake news. He is an activist against drug spread by the Narendra Modi government. Watch movies and history published on the drug use in Punjab.

Stop updating material you do not know. Clearly Wikipedia is saying the same. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No I wont. He is a terrorist, try stopping me. 07:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: I would request this person be blocked from editing rights. He does not verify his information and is spreading fake news.

Please start a proofreading process for critical wikipedia pages for the sake of Wikipedia’s brand. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ofcouse my account is verified unlike yours. 08:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Talking about Punjab while sitting in Washington. 08:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Oblivy. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bharatiya Kisan Union have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. User made numerous edits in a short time, which resulted in blanking a section critical of Hindu nationalists, and a gibberish change Oblivy (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions reminder

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, there is a discussion going about actions of Dilpreet singh at Administrators' noticeboard. Please share your views there. Mixmon (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:CrusaderForTruth2023 - gaming. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 05:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

PM-SHRI Scheme moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to PM-SHRI Scheme. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Will add sources. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources added and article expanded. Can move back to normal CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of words

It doesnot constitute consensus building and never helps the discussion when you say things like The same can be opened for you also. It's better that you stay off this path. Be careful. Cheers! >>> Extorc.talk 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you realise whom I was referring to. You know that the person is himself a K Sympathiser and trying to push his version over others. And I won't let him do it at any cost. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know whom you are addressing. But saying this hardly helps anyone. Avoid that. >>> Extorc.talk 08:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc So someone unilaterally edited the article to remove a well referenced content that criticised Amritpal.

The ones you are up against don't play by the rules it seems. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Try to read what I'm saying. You should always attempt to take actions which will improve the situation otherwise you are no better. Having an attitude like "The ones you are up against" will not help. All I say is be careful from next time. If someone is making absurd suggestions, dismiss them patiently. >>> Extorc.talk 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine Enough. Thanks. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Neat links

Do you know while sharing links in talk pages, one way to make them look neat and convey the favorable info quicker, you can use this
"[https:www.link.com ISI planted Amritpal Singh]" which will look like Isi planted Amritpal Singh
This way you can keep talk pages organized and clean in lengthy discussions. >>> Extorc.talk 13:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: PM-SHRI Scheme (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:PM-SHRI Scheme may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CrusaderForTruth2023! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Hello, you commented about a source today in Amritpal talk page. There is a discussion going on at RSN about reliability of The Wire. You can participate in that if you like. Mixmon (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring and disruptive editing

Your recent editing history at Rahul Gandhi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: See also my comment at ANI regarding your recent editing, specifically the edit-warring at Rahul Gandhi and bludgeoning the discussion at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (roughly 50 posts in the last 24h). You have already been informed of the special rules governing editing contentious topics (such as articles and discussions related to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and if your current conduct continues you are likely to be topic-banned from Indian-politics. Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

While I am giving a detailed summary of my edits, @TheWikiholicis engaged in reverting the edits without any edit summary or explanation.

The edit I reverted was a clear malafide of "self made interpretation" of multiple sources to create an opinion that is nowhere mentioned in the original quoted sources which is a clear violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE . You can refer to the content vs the sources referred and make your judgement on the same.

For the meanwhile I will not edit the page but I hope that a similar warning is served to @TheWikiholicso that this is taken to the Talk Page and not to editing/reverts without any reason or discussion. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DR for how disputes can be resolved without edit-warring. The short version is: discuss (and, if needed, involve more editors) till consensus is reached. As a moment's thought will show, editors repeatedly reverting each other just because each believes the other is in the wrong does not help reach consensus or even stability. Hence, the rules against edit-warring. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. :) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, my ECP was withdrawn. What is the means to appeal it or get it back? @Abecedare

It literally forces me to get off Wikipedia if there is no recourse to getting extended rights(as most good pages are ECP protected) once they are withdrawn (although I do acknowledge that due to my ignorance of WP:GAMING policy I did some unwarranted actions but they were promptly stopped as soon as I got to know of the policy).

Kindly reply ASAP. @Abecedare CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also note that I have taken adequate measures to comply with any warning or notice served. a@Abecedare CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I withdrew your ECP right, CrusaderForTruth. You can appeal to have it restored, at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I don't think that's going to be successful until you have spent some time (a month at the very least) showing that you can edit controversial topics without (frankly) going on crusades about them. To be quite clear, there's no formal rule preventing you from appealing right away, but I wouldn't if I were you. EC protection isn't used for "good" pages in particular, but for pages where there has been a lot of disruption. Those are the pages that you need to show you can be trusted to edit. Bishonen | tålk 04:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC).

(edit conflict) CrusaderForTruth2023, you can also request the ECP right to be reinstated at WP:PERM but (as Bishonen said) don't do so immediately!

A general observation: so many high-profile articles are EC protected not because they are "interesting" per se but because they have been subject to regular disruption either intentionally and/or inadvertently by good-faith but inexperienced editors ignorant of the content policies or practices of wikipedia editing. So use the time w/o ECP userright to familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines by reading/asking around and by editing less controversial pages where editing is typically less frenetic. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My simple point to @Bishonenand @Abecedareis to atleast look at my edit history on the ECP/Controversial pages. I can openly and confidently say that not even one edit went against the rule. Also, I never went on any Crusade, the name was changed because initially I used my real world name which can be dangerous and violated privacy.

My edits are extremely minimal in both number and content as compared to most other edits in the same pages which are extensive and not even referenced and exibit clear bias are extremely well referenced (I have never done a single edit on protected pages without atleast 2-3 credible references to back it and even so after a long discussion on Talk Page)

Leaving behind the singular mistake of multiple edits on single page which frankly accept (but was never repeated after warning), I don't even see any disruptive action or even war that I engaged in.

Feel free to check the edit actions and tell where any WP was violated or edits were in bad faith. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it significant that prior to being called out about your "singular mistake" (which presumably doesn't include the WP:COPYVIO that resulted in one of your pages being deleted), on your user page and other talk pages you had no difficulty adding multiple paragraphs with a single edit, whereas your mainspace edits were sometimes done one word at a time?

Note that your prior username still exists in the history of your user page, and on any talk page where you were mentioned. Not a privacy violation if you put it on Wikipedia yourself. This is a public website, and while we all sometimes get into conflicts (some more than others it seems), it's all recorded in the annals of Wikipedia so best practice is for editors to conduct themselves with the appropriate degree of decorum. Oblivy (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That adding one word at a time is the mistake I was referring to 🤦‍♂️ CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, if rights are restored good, if not then I would leave Wikipedia as I have much better work to do. It's better to be a real life administrator and weild power in real life than be a digital warrior editing pages.But I maintain that not one of my edits on any controversial page was in bad faith, disruptive or without references.

Was a good experience seeing the blatant bias and propaganda on Wiki, some day hopefully will be back if Wiki survives by then. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Hi - I'm not sure if you are familiar with our policies on using multiple accounts - if not, please take a look at WP:SOCK. It is not prohibited to use more than one account, but generally one is expected to declare the connection between them, and using them to edit the same articles or to evade scrutiny is prohibited. I am not accusing you of using another account improperly, I'm just drawing your attention to the policy. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 13:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, your edit on Tipu Sultan did not appear to be constructive as it did not include a reliable source.

News media is not a reliable source on articles about historical figures. Please see WP:RS,

Thank You,

SKAG123 (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)