User talk:Shubham2019

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Shubham2019. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opindia

Hi Shubharm2019,

Noticed the talk page of OpIndia where you have posted a note saying the Wikipedia write up on OpIndia is biased. I quite agree with you.

It's interesting that IFCN's denial of membership stems from the fact that OpIndia does not entertain left liberal views. ^[1]

The fact that IFCN rejects OpIndia's membership application because it prefers to focus on right leaning views is a complete different thing from the ability to objectively assess if the right leaning fact is correctly presented. If anything it brings out a possible bias of IFCN.

Stated another way an organization that focuses on Cricket as a sport may be biased to it, but to be denied IFCN membership because it may not report Soccer facts accurately is quite controversial. One's bias and one's objectivity may be two different things.

Infact Wikipedia's own policy on Reliable Sources under the heading of Biased Sources acknowledges this, that biased sources need not be inaccurate. The bias may be a focus on a certain topic and need not mean its being presented incorrectly. ^[2]

Hence the Wikipedia lead section to the OpIndia page that has a single line which disparages a good organization, '...and has propagated fake news over multiple occasions.[3]' is incorrect, malicious and needs a correction.

A number of other reputed media outlets including the BBC could have been factually incorrect. Why should such an observation not be made of them then?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Will post this on the OpIndia Wiki Talk page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:166c:b930:28cb:1e47:7d28:b45e (talk • contribs) — 2402:3a80:166c:b930:28cb:1e47:7d28:b45e (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Liz: thank you Liz for the welcome and the cookies as well. Looking forward to contributing constructively on wikipedia.

Le me also Wish you a very Happy Women's Day to you. Shubham2019 (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been on your page for three weeks now and was not posted by me. I simply posted a welcome message to you over the weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:Respected Ma'am I understand that now. It was in continuation with your message. I don't know why it was so. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The absence of signature made me think otherwise. I had no intention to attribute something you did not write to you. Shubham2019 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it being on my talk page earlier, i somehow missed it and read it in conjunction with your Welcome message. I respect you that you welcomed me, despite everyone else being a little intimidating. I'm really very sorry if i let you down. Shubham2019 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your addition to Indian Institute of Toxicology Research has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll keep that in mind. I have worked at the place and was trying to improve its Wikipedia presence in good faith. I'll remember to write my own content if I make future edits. Thanks! Shubham2019 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New talk sections only for new topics

Please add your new comments in Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#No._Of_victims_and_their_religion to the existing section on the topic, which is titled "Majority of Muslims...".

You cannot expect other people to read your comments when you don't bother to read the comments that are already present on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

-- CptViraj (📧) 06:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on North East Delhi riots. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SerTanmay. I would like to contribute constructively as well. I haven't edited any article in bad faith. I understand you are a senior editor. I am a novice. Looking forward to learn from Indian wiki ecosystem. Shubham2019 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Thank you for the constructive guidance. I will definitely add edit summaries. You are the first editor with whom I've had a positive interaction. Shubham2019 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shubham Johri. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/can-fact-checking-emerge-as-big-and-viable-business/articleshow/69210719.cms

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BIASED&redirect=no

[1]

[2]