User talk:Debarpanghosh5

December 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do proper research before claiming what is commentary and what is fact. The misrepresentation of facts on Wikipedia is becoming evident everyday and bringing down it's credibility. Debarpanghosh5 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with what is being presented, then provide reliable sources or discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. Simply changing the description to what you feel is "fact" is just you inserting your own opinion. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Abecedare (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been indefinitely blocked from the article The Kashmir Files for persistent and tendentious removal of reliable sources and well-sourced content. Note that you can still edit the article's talkpage (are you aware that articles have talkpages?) as well as the rest of Wikipedia. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Debarpanghosh5!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

I have reverted your recent edits to Indus River. The edits run counter to the longstanding consensus version of the page. I am not templating you yet, but please be aware that Kashmir is a disputed territory. I recommend that you tread carefully while editing any Kashmir-related article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you tell me why is it then in the page for nanga parbat, it doesn't say location as "Kashmir (disputed)" but as "Pakistan". I am not flagging it legally as misinformation yet just till I get a satisfactory response Debarpanghosh5 (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have not made the choice unilaterally. We at Wikipedia are beholden to the reliable sources of due weight. I apologize; this was not made clear. In both articles, Indus River and Nanga Parbat, I have added citations to Encyclopaedia Britannica with quotations. You will see the content that we have paraphrased. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insinuate legal threats. Pinging user:RegentsPark, user:Abecedare Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they mean flagging on-wiki (and are using "legally" incorrectly). Debarpanghosh5, you should strike out the word "legally". RegentsPark (comment) 13:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: (fix ping).RegentsPark (comment) 13:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RegentsPark:. Yes, that is eminently sensible. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason why we cannot use indian administered Ladakh and Pakistan administered Gilgit Baltistan. This gives maximum clarity. Debarpanghosh5 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debarpanghosh5, you need to strike out the word "legally" in your post above. If you don't, it may mean that you are referring to external legal action of some sort and that is not permitted on Wikipedia.RegentsPark (comment) 15:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Debarpanghosh5 Hi, I've reverted the edit(s), you made at Indus River. In reply to your "I see no reason why we cannot use indian administered Ladakh and Pakistan administered Gilgit Baltistan. This gives maximum clarity." Have you read the article lead, infobox parameter "States, provinces or administered regions" and quotes from Encyclopaedia Britannica and other scholarly sources? MŠLQr (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a new editor, Tigerwagh99 (talk · contribs), has made several edits very similar to Debarpanghosh5's Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article protection level should be elevated to EC users. Another possible reason for the increase in such edits (since 24 April) seems the rise in viewership of the article caused by the recent suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, due to the ongoing crisis between India and Pakistan. MŠLQr (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]