User talk:Shubhamgawali1

Welcome, Shubhamgawali1!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Shubhamgawali1! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 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.

Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you mention which article I edited about deceased person? Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is actually a response to edits to articles of living people, including:

Kavin Bharti Mittal
Ankur Jain
Dev Pragad
Kapoor family, which likely has living people, and may or may not have recently deceased people.
Jill Kelley
Urfi Javed

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard CT notice for new editors, and you don't get to choose the wording, and yes, they have edited articles about living people, and they clearly know that. And Shubhamgawali1 should also read our policies on no original research and verifiability, because their recent edits to Jill Kelley are problematic. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)

September 2024

Hello Shubhamgawali1. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Etienne Uzac, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Shubhamgawali1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shubhamgawali1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No I’m not paid not I’ve any connection with him, it just he’s controversial since years. Read the article why do you think its promotional? Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here two weeks and the chance of finding that article and taking an interest in it are miniscule. So what is the connection? Your acting like a paid editor or you have some kind of connection? What is it? scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve Literally no connection with IBT media nor Uzac, I’m a media student, I follow the news publications, and that article doesn’t fail Significant coverage he has so much of independent coverage Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring and file a Deletion Review or you're going to be blocked. Star Mississippi 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please tell me how do I go for DRV? Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the steps at WP:DRV. Note that it has to be because you feel the close was incorrect, not just because you disagree Star Mississippi 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm GrabUp. An edit that you recently made to Abhimanyu Sethi seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The article was already linked internally, still you placed the orphan tag. GrabUp - Talk 13:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t linked when I checked but now it is. I have also linked Abhimanyu on other articles. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Climate smart home

A tag has been placed on Category:Climate smart home indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]