User talk:Satyabrat Shanu

December 2019

Hello, I'm Jakichandan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Purnia district, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jakichandan (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re United States

Because you didn't improve it. You moved the infobox down a paragraph; that's not how it's done on wikipedia, infobox are in line with the top paragraph. I gave exactly as much info about the edit as you did. You then redid it, offering no elaboration on why you made your edit, and it was reverted again. --Golbez (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, it's not. Please show me any country article where the infobox starts below the top of the article. Or any article at all, really. You won't find many. --Golbez (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. I don't know what screen you're looking at this on, but on my PC, the infoboxes are always flush with the top paragraph. The only thing they're below is the disambiguation notice. I don't necessarily like to pull rank, but maybe you should defer to the people who have been here for 15 years as to what the established style is? --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saura river moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Saura river, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Lapablo (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Kosi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kari Kosi, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Lapablo (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What generally should not be linked

pls read over WP:Overlink--Moxy 🍁 07:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saura river (December 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Need more references

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Saura river and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Saura river, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Satyabrat Shanu! Having an article 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! KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saura river has been accepted

Saura river, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Dadi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Farida Dadi, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Farida Dadi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Farida Dadi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Farida Dadi (July 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NACTOR for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

This draft does not establish acting notability or general notability.

Please do not submit multiple copies of drafts. It does not increase the likelihood that one of them will be accepted into article space, and annoys the reviewers. It is likely to be seen as an effort to game the system, and may result in the drafts being nominated for deletion. Another copy has been entered in article space and has been tagged for deletion.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission.

It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over.

If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required declarations.

You may ask for advice about conflict of interest at the Teahouse.

If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.

Your draft article, Draft:Farida Dadi

Hello, Satyabrat Shanu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Farida Dadi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nehruvian rate of growth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nehruvian rate of growth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2 § Nehruvian rate of growth until a consensus is reached. Capitals00 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu rate of growth was a mis coined termed targeted on a special community Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Capitals00 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't publish your thoughts or Idealogy on Wikipedia. Your editing history clearly shows the biased edits your are doing on contentious topics. There is no edits done by me on topics you claimed that I edited. Please refrain from these activities and let Wikipedia depend on facts. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing so by removing the word "Hindu" on Hindu rate of growth. Capitals00 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Capitals00 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Pasting Wikipedia page will not help you. You need a psychiatrist Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Capitals00 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Capitals00, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project where we must work together alongside people we disagree with. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Saying that another editor needs to be treated by a psychiatrist is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of policy. Consider this a warning: Any further personal attacks may result in you being blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Cullen328: This editor is still disrupting Hindu rate of growth because he finds it offensive towards Hindus.[1] This is a typical WP:RGW behavior which he is not willing to accept. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All edits are proper citated from verified sources. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are adding: "but it has nothing to do with term 'Hindu' and is often regarded as a derogatory phrase concerning India not being able to meet its economic potential, according to A Dictionary of Politics and International Relations in India. But he didn't use the term critically or to denigrate the Hindus and instead the term Nehruvian rate of growth is more accurate."

It is not supported by any of your sources. One of your source (Times of India article) is written by a political activist. You need to read WP:RS and avoid misrepresenting the sources. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of articles on Wikipedia are sourced from the Times of India. It is one of the reputed newspapers of India. You can't blame newspapers for not following your view. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use an article written by a motivated political activist even if something more reliable than Times of India has published it.

You are still evading the issue about your misrepresentation of sources. Capitals00 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328@Cullen328 Please warn @Capitals00@Capitals00 for his edit war. You can view history of his activities on his talk page where a lot of editors are pointing fingers on him for edit warring and Vandalism on pages related to Hindu faith. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:TIMESOFINDIA which says TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. As for Hindu rate of growth, that article should be a neutral presentation of all significant points of view about that term in reliable sources. It should not be framed as an argument for or against, and should not overly rely on opinion pieces. The relevant policy is the Neutral point of view, which all editors should re-read from time to time. As for vandalism, that has a very specific meaning explained at WP:VANDALISM, which says editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia. A destructive intent is required, and disagreeing about content is not vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Hindu rate of growth for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case and Cullen328: After sitting out the block, this user is now wikihounding my edits by reverting me on multiple pages. Compare this[2][3] and also this[4][5]. On the former, he violated BLP of an unnamed individual by removing the word "allegedly" by falsely claiming that the charge was proven, and on the latter he has used a false edit summary by claiming that I did not explain my edit when I had. Also read this unsourced edit by him, made after removing sourced content. These are the 3 edits he made since the expiry of his block and all of them are disruptive. I believe this user is no longer here for building encyclopedia. Capitals00 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how is it disruptive edits by me not this user. He keep edit warring with multiple users. He himself pointed out that The Times of India misrepresent articles and he is using it as source on contagious topics. He is misrepresenting facts on Hinduphobia page. I just made corrections on those articles as per Wikipedia guidelines. You are misusing your administrator status for Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Please first check history which user is making disruptive edits on similar contentious topics and which user is contributing to encyclopedia before taking these type of actions. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Contagious topics" ... that malapropism is a new one. Thanks for making me smile a little bit.

But it also points up that you may also have some competence issues as well. Your English, while far from the worst I've ever seen here, does have some deficiencies, and you might be better off editing the Wikipedia in whatever your first language is for at least the duration of this block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be very happy on typos. By the way, thanks if I made you smile with my little mistake. Show some responsibility which you are holding and these types of replies doesn't suit a administrator. You haven't answered my question yet. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never "pointed out that The Times of India misrepresent articles". You must read WP:NOTTHEM. Capitals00 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But another editor @Cullen328replied on your concern with - TIMESOFINDIA which says TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Satyabrat Shanu (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not been cautious and that is part of the reason why you are now blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]