User talk:AshutoshRapatwar30: Difference between revisions

Line 32: Line 32:

:@[[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] Thank you for your feedback. I have referred to multiple reputable news articles that include the same description, such as “iconic sea-facing bungalow in Mumbai, a symbol of luxury and Bollywood royalty,” specifically referring to Shah Rukh Khan’s residence. This phrase is widely used and verifiable through reliable sources, which can be easily confirmed via a Google search. I believe it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards as it is supported by reliable citations. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22iconic+sea-facing+bungalow+in+Mumbai%2C+a+symbol+of+luxury+and+Bollywood+royalty%2C%22&rlz=1C1ONGR_enIN1089IN1089&oq=%22iconic+sea-facing+bungalow+in+Mumbai%2C+a+symbol+of+luxury+and+Bollywood+royalty%2C%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBBzY4MWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

:However, I am open to further guidance if there are specific concerns about phrasing or neutrality, and I am committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s quality and neutrality policies. [[User:AshutoshRapatwar30|AshutoshRapatwar30]] ([[User talk:AshutoshRapatwar30#top|talk]]) 09:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia has different editorial standards from newspapers, magazines, and such. Among other things, that means we should avoid subjective or promotional language, even if the source uses it. If the source uses such language, it may be intended to promote its subject, which is not something that should be done here. Also worth noting, ~~the~~ many of the pages that turn up with the ~~google~~ search you link to are blogs and social media posts, which do ”not” qualify as reliable sources. The top result is from the Times of India, which is [[WP:TIMESOFINDIA|not necessarily reliable]]. In context, the article that comes up with that search result appears to be paid promotion. Responding to you other comments, you cannot cite personal conversations as they are not [[WP:V|verifiable]]. You must use published information. Hearing from the person himself would also be considered a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]], which should be avoided, especially in pages about living people (see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]). [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 17:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia has different editorial standards from newspapers, magazines, and such. Among other things, that means we should avoid subjective or promotional language, even if the source uses it. If the source uses such language, it may be intended to promote its subject, which is not something that should be done here. Also worth noting, many of the pages that turn up with the search you link to are blogs and social media posts, which do ”not” qualify as reliable sources. The top result is from the Times of India, which is [[WP:TIMESOFINDIA|not necessarily reliable]]. In context, the article that comes up with that search result appears to be paid promotion. Responding to you other comments, you cannot cite personal conversations as they are not [[WP:V|verifiable]]. You must use published information. Hearing from the person himself would also be considered a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]], which should be avoided, especially in pages about living people (see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]). [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 17:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]], even if unintentional, as you did at [[:Ajit Gopchade]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. ”Please write more descriptive edit summaries. Say what you actually added or changed with an edit. Adding entire sentences to an article is not a “small change.””<!– Template:uw-mislead3 –> [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 19:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:
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 after they have been resolved.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AshutoshRapatwar30!
Having an article draft 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! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m CanonNi. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mumbai seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ”'[[User:CanonNi]]”’ (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CanonNi, Thank you for your message and for upholding Wikipedia’s standards. Mumbai is indeed a city, and my edit was made with the intention of presenting factual information. If you found it less than neutral, I would appreciate specific guidance on which part might lack neutrality so I can address it. I strive to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and welcome constructive feedback to improve the article. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Shah Rukh Khan. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Also, see the below message about puffery. Phrasing such as “iconic sea-facing bungalow in Mumbai, a symbol of luxury and Bollywood royalty,” is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS Thank you for your feedback. I have referred to multiple reputable news articles that include the same description, such as “iconic sea-facing bungalow in Mumbai, a symbol of luxury and Bollywood royalty,” specifically referring to Shah Rukh Khan’s residence. This phrase is widely used and verifiable through reliable sources, which can be easily confirmed via a Google search. I believe it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards as it is supported by reliable citations. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22iconic+sea-facing+bungalow+in+Mumbai%2C+a+symbol+of+luxury+and+Bollywood+royalty%2C%22&rlz=1C1ONGR_enIN1089IN1089&oq=%22iconic+sea-facing+bungalow+in+Mumbai%2C+a+symbol+of+luxury+and+Bollywood+royalty%2C%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBBzY4MWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

However, I am open to further guidance if there are specific concerns about phrasing or neutrality, and I am committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s quality and neutrality policies. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has different editorial standards from newspapers, magazines, and such. Among other things, that means we should avoid subjective or promotional language, even if the source uses it. If the source uses such language, it may be intended to promote its subject, which is not something that should be done here. Also worth noting, many of the pages that turn up with the Google search you link to are blogs and social media posts, which do not qualify as reliable sources. The top result is from the Times of India, which is not necessarily reliable. In context, the article that comes up with that search result appears to be paid promotion. Responding to you other comments, you cannot cite personal conversations as they are not verifiable. You must use published information. Hearing from the person himself would also be considered a primary source, which should be avoided, especially in pages about living people (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). TornadoLGS (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, as you did at Ajit Gopchade, you may be blocked from editing. Please write more descriptive edit summaries. Say what you actually added or changed with an edit. Adding entire sentences to an article is not a “small change.” TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS Thank you for your message and for highlighting the importance of clear and accurate edit summaries. I understand that proper edit summaries are essential for transparency and collaboration on Wikipedia.

Regarding the recent edits I made to the Ajit Gopchade article, I personally know the person and have ensured that the information added is true and trustworthy. Before making any changes, I carefully checked multiple reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and official websites, and I have also created the article about Dr. Ajit Gopchade as a Member of Parliament.

I kindly request you to review the cited sources in the article to verify the information. I am committed to maintaining the quality and accuracy of the content and am open to further discussion and improvements.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ajit Gopchade have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a “soapbox” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sumanuil, Thank you for your message and for helping maintain Wikipedia’s standards. I understand the importance of objective, neutral content and avoiding promotional language.

Please note that I have gathered information from multiple reliable and independent sources such as books, newspapers, and official websites before making the recent edits related to Ajit Gopchade. I know the subject personally and have ensured the content is accurate and verifiable.

I kindly request that you review the cited sources in the article to confirm the reliability of the information. I remain committed to working collaboratively to maintain the quality and neutrality of the article and would welcome any specific suggestions for improvement.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Namita Mundada. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sumanuil, Thank you for your message and for your efforts to maintain Wikipedia’s standards. I want to assure you that all the information I have added and updated has been verified through credible news sources and reflects current, accurate data. It is never my intention to mislead readers or add promotional content.

I value the quality and integrity of Wikipedia highly and strive to contribute in accordance with its policies. I would appreciate it if any removals could be accompanied by a specific explanation or opportunity to discuss the verifiability of the content. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

“Rivers in Maharashtra.” I understand and appreciate the importance of authentic and accurate information about water systems, especially for vital resources such as rivers in Maharashtra.

Given the environmental challenges such as pollution and drying rivers, this topic is indeed significant for both local and global audiences. I encourage you to continue updating and improving the article with well-sourced, neutral, and verifiable information.

Once the article meets Wikipedia’s quality and sourcing standards, it can be considered for publication. Please feel free to reach out for any assistance in the editing or review process.

Thank you for your valuable contribution. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add honourifics like “sant” or “sri” or “ji” into biographical articles, read: WP:HONOURIFICS MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When editing, please try to avoid puffery and similar non-encyclopedic language. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the spellings in articles on India to American-English spelling, as you did at Nagpur. India is not part of the U.S.A., so American spelling is not appropriate. If your IT equipment uses American spelling, you can correct this by this method:

Have a nice day day.— Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m FifthFive. An edit that you recently made to Patoda seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. FifthFive (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged you about this several times before. Please provide an edit summary other than “small change.” If you add a reference, write “added reference.” If you add text, say what you added. Adding an entire block of text to an article is not a “small change.” TornadoLGS (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, please avoid avoid using subjective terms and try to write from a neutral point of view. See language to avoid at MOS:PUFFERY. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AshutoshRapatwar30. Please check your email; you’ve got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You’ve got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

thank you for your time! Phoebezz22 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have submitted the survey AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replied you in the same email! Phoebezz22 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AshutoshRapatwar30. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rivers In Maharashtra, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AshutoshRapatwar30. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “Rivers In Maharashtra“.

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one 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 read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aniket Ujjwal Nikam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aniket Ujjwal Nikam. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have just deleted Aniket Ujjwal Nikam under section G4 of the speedy deletion criteria. Please do not recreate it in article space. If you think you can fix the problems that were identified in the AFD discussion that closed a couple weeks ago, I can restore the article to draft space so you can work on it and send it through the Articles for creation process, which, if successful, should protect it from future G4 deletions. Let me know if you want me to restore it to draft space. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn Thank you for your message and for explaining the deletion under the G4 criterion. I would like to highlight that Aniket Ujjwal Nikam is an important individual, a lawyer, political figure, and son of a Member of Parliament, whose work has gained notable attention.

The subject and his activities have been covered by reputable media outlets like The Times of India and The Indian Express, among other significant press sources. For the article, I submitted over 20 reliable news links to verify his notability.

I kindly request that the article be restored to draft space so I can address any issues and submit it through the Articles for Creation process for further review and publication.

Thank you for your consideration. AshutoshRapatwar30 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can find it at Draft:Aniket Ujjwal Nikam. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think you need some help understanding what is and what is not a reliable source, especially in the sphere of topics involving India. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs, and check potential sources against Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (for example, Times of India is listed as yellow for its “poor reputation for fact-checking” meaning it should only be used with caution). I also see you have cited Wikipedia several times in the article. You should not cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Please also carefully review Wikipedia:Reliable sources so that you understand what is and what is not a reliable source. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply