User talk:Givemeplease

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and uncited content

Hi, you will often find uncited content with "citation needed" tags. In general, we don't remove such content unless it is contentious (opinionated) or seems unverifiable. If possible, you should attempt to improve the articles rather than remove content. Secondly, if a web link to a published article is broken, you should remove the web link, but the citation should remain. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading some wikipedia guidelines and they seem to suggest that the burden of proof lies on the person wishing to add or restore content. In most cases, content that is uncited is also unverifiable. A lot of it is potentially contentious. Is it not better to err on the side of caution? I, for one, would rather have articles that are less detailed but reliable than detailed articles that are potentially full of lies. Givemeplease (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the gray areas of Wikipedia policies and you won't find agreement among all the editors about what to do when there is uncited content. We usually tag it for citations, but delete it only when it is obviously wrong or sounds unlikely. Since you are a beginner yet, I would advise caution. If you go around deleting content but rarely add anything of your own, you will probably head for a block. For example, this deletion [1] is quite unwarranted. Do you not know that Vajpayee's NDA government did not pursue the controversial issues in its manifesto? The BJP article is a good article and has been reviewed by numerous experienced editors. I would say you are taking too much liberties in deleting it and labelling it as "POV" (whereas in fact it is factual). You may be within your rights to delete it, but you will piss people off. When the times comes for somebody to assess whether you are here to build a Wikipedia or to take it down, your behaviour will be found to be wanting. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I think removing iffy content is not inherently destructive but I concede that the BJP edit was indeed unwarranted. Givemeplease (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Givemeplease, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Givemeplease! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

17:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Censoring my userpage

Don't try to censor my userpage. A m i t 웃 08:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it is you who is censoring your userpage. Also, any actions that are not in the spirit of Wikipedia must be dealt with accordingly. Givemeplease (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New users

Hi Givemeplease, if you turn on Twinkle in your user preferences, you get buttons for welcoming new users. You also get a Twinkle (TW) menu on user pages, from which you can pick the appropriate welcome message. To give ARBIPA sanctions alert, you need to write {{subst:alert|ipa}}. I don't usually give the alert for new users, but only if they prove to be troublesome over a period of time. But the welcome message is quite important. Otherwise, they wouldn't know why their edits are getting reverted. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! I did not notice the sanctions alert at first, and did not mean to thank you for that particular edit. I mistook it for the welcome message edit which I later thanked you for, as I had originally intended, to acknowledge that it was preferable to the warning I had initially posted. Givemeplease (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea for the first message to a new user be a welcome rather than a warning, because it is informative and friendly. We can also use it to refer the people back to the core policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Givemeplease (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond JNU

Going beyond JNU, perhaps you can pay some attention to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad page, which is currently just a propaganda page? I have added some Further reading entries yesterday, which can be used to build a proper article.

We also need to look into the various "Adhivakta Sanghs" that are going around in the country. I have found it hard to get enough information about them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I will contribute to the best of my ability when I can. Givemeplease (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a very cursory look and most of the Further reading entries seem to be either books or dead links.Givemeplease (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To comment based on a 'very cursory look' was premature. It seems that the linked pages do have potentially useful information. Apologies! Givemeplease (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, books are the best possible sources. You can either get enough info from Google Books or try to find a copies in a library. You can also try to find research articles on "Google Scholar" but it is unlikely that there will be any papers devoted to such specialized subjects. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 JNU sedition controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azadi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]