User talk:Dympies

Welcome!

Hello, Dympies, 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 Maratha empire did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always 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.

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.  regentspark (comment) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Hi. Just because a map exists on commons, it doesn't follow that you can use it here. Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia and that sourcing policy applies to everything, including maps. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If the map I used doesn't have any major discrepancy, why should it be not used in wiki articles? The 1758 map I am talking about was always there in Maratha Empire article. I don't know how and when it got removed. I just restored that map. The relevance of that map is that it belongs to 1758, the short period when Maratha Empire was at its peak with extent stretching to Pak-Afghan border. If we have some better map for 1758, then we may use it instead. Otherwise, I don't find any major issue with this map. -Dympies (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dympies, I have removed your re-addition of the maps. Though your edit-summary said "The present maps also have sources provided" that is not true for File:South Asia 1758 AD.jpg, which has even been tagged with 'A self fabricated hoax map based on 0 sources. Its packed with errors. For example, tt shows empires which didn't even exist at the time.' for over three years. The map is also inconsistent with the second map you added for the empire (in 1759). As for the second map: as far as I can tell, it is a copyright violation and will need to be deleted from Commons. In general, when your edits are reverted, it is a recommended to discuss the issue with the other editors instead of simply repeating the disputed edits; see WP:BRD.

Finally, you added two sources in your recent edits, which is great. But can you check out this guide for properly formatting references and also make sure that the source content exactly matches what it is being cited for (in meaning, not words). Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Shiv Sena

2 things should be clear to you.

(1) There is no such consensus to not add it there. Discussion is not over at the page you linked.

(2) Whatever may be the final consensus at the end of the discussion need not apply to all pages of wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Per Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis#Undue and subjective addition, it is clear that you should not be adding this text anywhere on those articles where you had added it. Demand for a new discussion on every single page over same content is nothing more than gaming against consensus for which you have been warned.  Dympies (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Kanhaiya lal

Read WP:ONUS. Please stop edit warring to introduce controversial content that violates BLP. This exact line is up for RfC discussion, please wait for consensus to emerge before editing it. RfC link Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#RfC_about_Attari's_infiltration_in_BJP --Venkat TL (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yono Lite moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Yono Lite, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mundka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Raju Srivastav

You are the only one who is claiming "affected his career". Why are you claiming that? I have started 2 threads you can respond there, for WP:Consensus Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syed Ali Shah Geelani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

DS advisory

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Princely states of Pakistan

Dympies, I am sure you acted in good faith, but with the greatest respect, please do not add a section to this page about Amarkot. It was not “pretty much a state” at the time of the partition of India, it was part of the Thar and Parkar district of the Sind Province of British India. It had no local ruler who had the right to accede to either new dominion, it simply became part of Pakistan as a result of the Indian Independence Act 1947. Moonraker (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to refer the sources here. Give me some time to look into this. Dympies (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rajput, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NWFP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello, I'm Admantine123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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.[1] While Editing Meena caste page, you removed this source from Indian history Congress,which is generally considered of good quality. Admantine123 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Razer(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

History of Community

The Unsource oral history of the community did not apply to all Indian Subcontinent. Please change this. The history contain only local perceptions in scenario of Bihar not whole Indian Subcontinent state. It should to modify Unsourced history. ARJ 21:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarjeetkr97 (talk • contribs)

Amarjeetkr97, which article are you referring to? Dympies (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Meena

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Meena, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:40, 26 May 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. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely topic-banned from all content and discussions related to Rajputs, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for long-term POV-pushing and tendentious editing based on subpar sources at Rajput as discussed at User talk:Bishonen. For example, the slow edit-warring over months to add undue and disputed content ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), which you then re-positioned to highlight it over scholars' evaluation and dismissal of such content; repeated use of primary and subpar sources and wikilawyering to ignore feedback based on "wrong venue" argument; etc. I considered a page-block but your edits at Chamar (eg), Rajputisation (eg) and Rajputs in Bihar (eg) show how easily the POV issues can bleed out to other related articles. Have, however, kept the topic-ban as narrow as reasonable for the moment.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added "indefinitely" in the above notification to avoid any confusion about the duration. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)