User talk:Xhubham mishra

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Xhubham mishra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hydromania (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Khandaani Shafakhana[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Khandaani Shafakhana, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Tolly 4 bolly 06:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction.I have edited the article with proper references this time. Xhubham mishra (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes at Badshah (rapper)[edit]

Hi there, re: these changes, though I appreciate your efforts to expand the article, I have reverted your changes for a few reasons:

Not every article needs a controversy section. This is something I see pop up a great deal in Indian entertainment articles, likely because the Indian media loves to dredge up salacious details and promote outrage. Many editors feel that controversy sections place an undue emphasis on negative events, which makes it harder to maintain Wikipedia's neutral point of view. That said, the information you submitted would naturally fit in a Critical response section or similar. However, that brings us to point 2:
There is insufficient context. Where are the differing perspectives? What is Badshah's response to accusations that his song is misogynistic? Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We should be presenting a balanced perspective about Badshah and our other article subjects, not just dropping gossip bombs or deciding ourselves that his songs are obscene and vulgar, which is how the language read to me.
Your references are not formatted properly. You should see Referencing for Beginners. We do not include links in braces {{}}. The simplest, bare-bones way to add references is to place a URL between ref tags like <ref>http://sample.com</ref>. Also, we do not link to Google search results. You have to link to the actual articles. So https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scroll.in/article/875109/from-four-bottles-of-vodka-to-small-pegs-the-evolution-of-the-punjabi-party-song-in-hindi-films Would correctly be linked to https://scroll.in/reel/875109/from-four-bottles-of-vodka-to-small-pegs-the-evolution-of-the-punjabi-party-song-in-hindi-films.

It would be appreciated if you'd please keep these things in mind moving forward. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Tanhaji, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ∯WBG^converse 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Jaggi Vasudev, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are (presumably) aware of MOS:LEADCITE. ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead? ∯WBG^converse 15:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020: warning[edit]

Hi, Xhubham mishra. Are you aware of this page, your own talkpage? Yes, I see you are, since you responded just once, here, very politely and apparently taking the correction on board. But since that time, you have not answered anybody. It's concerning to me to see all the warnings and complaints that have been posted here since 6 January, with no response from you. Communication is essential on Wikipedia, and warnings about failing to use reliable sources (or any sources) are serious. Even more serious is removal of film reviews which you dislike for political reasons, as you did here and here. Please don't politicize film articles! As far as I can see, you have never posted on an article talkpage. If you feel big chunks of an article should be removed, or replaced by something that's more aligned with your own political thinking as here, please don't just make these changes in the article, but go to the talkpage to discuss if they can be made. It's time you started using talkpages. Ultimately, if you continue to edit articles in the way I have exemplified, without discussion, you will end up blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

(I have moved your reply below from the top of my page (please don't top-post) to here, so that we can have a coherent conversation. Bishonen | talk 05:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC).)[reply]

Hello,The reviews deleted by me were not politically motivated at all.I have provided reasons for removing them in the summary,please check.There were two reviews from the same site i.e."film companion" so I removed one.The reviews I added were from major news sites and I had provide source for each.Therefore,it is very unjustified to accuse me of politically motivated disruption of any article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhubham mishra (talk • contribs)

Really? I did check the edit summaries, and they showed me you're a highly tendentious editor. Are you suggesting that the fact that you replaced negative reviews with positive was just an accident? And that you said the extravagantly flattering review by Hindustan Times was an "official" review (whatever that may be)? Or your extremely telling remark in an edit summary for removing negative reviews: "It is seen that often The wire, quint and other left wing sites pan down whatever portrays india's native hindu culture"? All this makes you a highly tendentious and political editor. I hope you take my advice about using article talkpages seriously, because you have only received a short block now, and the next block will be longer. It is also possible to be topic banned from Indian subjects. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means. Bishonen | talk 05:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Xhubham mishra:

When you reply to a post on your talk page, do it on your talk page, not on somebody else's. Don't fragment conversations.
Don't "top post" - that is, add your posts to the bottom of the section where you're posting, not at the top of another user's talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
Don't make posts like this: Special:Diff/936313442. It breaks the three injunctions above, and was rude, uncivil and a personal attack. You'll be blocked next time you do that.
When you're cleaning up the mess you caused, Special:Diff/936313518, just undo your edit. That failed attempt on your part removed all of another user's archiving. Have some care in the edits you make because folks here have very little tolerance of slapdash editing.

If anything I've written here is unclear to you, please feel free to reply here, not at the top of my talk page. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020: blocked[edit]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This block is for rather a short time. When it ends, you will be able to make constructive edits. If on the other hand you continue to attempt to use Wikipedia for political ends (for example, to right great wrongs), you can expect a longer block, very likely one of indefinite length. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Xhubham, personal attacks like this aren't tolerated at Wikipedia, whether it is directed at the right person, or the wrong person, as with your incorrect accusation directed at me. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. You should also be aware that if you intend to edit in contentious areas pertaining to Indian/Pakistani/Afghan politics or geography, or castes or things of that nature, these topics are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny from admins and can quickly result in sanctions against editors who might have strong opinions, perspectives or agendas. You might want to avoid these areas if you feel strongly about them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and block evasion like this is a violation of our sockpuppetry policy and will not be tolerated. If you do it again, your block will be extended far longer. Please control your emotions. Also, if you plan to make constructive talk page posts, please post new comments at the bottom of the talk page, unlike what you've been doing and please start signing your posts with four tildes like ~~~~. This will append your signature and a time stamp like what you see here → Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cyphoidbomb[edit]

Hello, Xhubham mishra. You have new messages at Cyphoidbomb's talk page.
Message added 18:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You and an anonymous editor have gone back and forth about the lead of the Nicky Jam article. They've opened a discussion and you should participate. If you choose not to participate, then you won't have consensus for the version you prefer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use erroneous edit summaries like you did here. You neither fixed any typos nor did you add any links. Quite the opposite, you removed two links. Editors rely on accurate edit summaries so they know at a glance what sort of change you made. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit-summary[edit]

The edit summary you have left here is not adequate to describe the edit you made. Your edit also violated our policy on no original research; the source says nothing about The Wire being "Alt left". Please be more careful in the future, because engaging in original research may be grounds for a topic ban or other sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Valereee. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to George Floyd have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being an apparently irredeemably tendentious and disruptive editor. Compare the warnings on this page, for instance this and this.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]