User talk:Hemraj108/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
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.
- Thanks , for this & I am actively reading Wikipedia rules but I have some questions like do news articles valid or reliable sources ? and like tweets by the person can be used in biography of living being ? As I saw in some articles with link to two different news channel websites but both have written different stats for the same subject and tweets are used for self identification in living biographies. Hemraj108 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- News articles are not considered as proper reliable sources, though they are used at times. We don't accept news articles as source in case of contentious articles like caste articles! As far as tweets are concerned, I don't think they would violate BLP rules, though I haven't used them as such! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Jayadeva, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Adakiko (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Adakiko , current version is the version of the sock puppet with unreliable source that is two couplets of poem & it does not mentions what is written in the article. My edit was the stable version & copy of this & the previous editor already mentioned in summary "Adding a book of poetry doesn't justify this change, especially as the sources backingthe original are still used." But before blocking the sock puppet again restored this i.e. current version. So I just reverted to the stable version on the basis of WP:BANREVERT. In short current version is based on unreliable sources with mentioning what is written & my version was the stable one. Hemraj108 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. May I suggest instead of leaving a url in the ES, just say "revert socking to last edit by Doug Weller"? The url enclosed by <ref></ref> looked very odd. Part of the reason I reverted you. BTW: You can removed most content from your talk page per wp:BLANKING. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)