User talk:Sarvagyalal

Welcome!

Hi Sarvagyalal! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! AntiDionysius (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello, I'm GrabUp. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Murshidabad violence, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can see live news and interview of victims of the violence Sarvagyalal (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Murshidabad violence, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. GrabUp - Talk 17:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alt News. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GrabUp - Talk 06:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Alt News, you may be blocked from editing. You replaced text that was supported by citations to reliable sources with far-right POV text that was not supported by the sources you left it next to. This goes against our policy on verifiability, which is that the text must be attributable to reliable, published sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at The Wire (India), you may be blocked from editing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the wire itself is unreliable source , used to give fake news against govt and india . Sarvagyalal (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarvagyalal, since you have not yet received the full message, I am posting an alert message below that provides additional information about contentious topics on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 21:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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. — Newslinger talk 21:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on The Wire (India)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Wire (India), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire (India)

Thank you for contributing to the article The Wire (India). However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Godi media, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The article is well sourced and cannot be blanked as you did. If you have further issue, you may start a discussion on the talk page of the article. WinKyaw (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you have used sources like the wire, newslaundry and washington post , who are known for bootlicking congress and spreading hinduphobic and anti india propaganda . all your reliable sources are left wing sources then how is wikipedia reliable . if you have a page on godi media then make a page on left wing media also . also tableeqi case was true and led to many covid cases in delhi. i know that as being a delhi resident myself. If Newslaundry writes against holi , then you dont claim it to be hinduphobic left wing , but when republictv claims an actual error done by muslims , you claim it to be hinduphobic . i dont expect such biased prpaganda from wikipedia Sarvagyalal (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also they cant be reliable as they are not even in the mainstream media . these are just small agencies who are known for fake news and even court told them to remove 14 articles which were c found out as fake news Sarvagyalal (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:OpIndia. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Sarvagyalal. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. The exception is that you are allowed to discuss your own conduct at WP:AE#Sarvagyalal until that discussion concludes.

You have been sanctioned per the evidence presented in this discussion, especially the BLP violations, POV-pushing, and battleground conduct.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sarvagyalal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I write the truth, the proven truth. I am in a fight against misinofrmation written in wikipedia by left wing individuals. Sarvagyalal (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining your appeal, because it in no way addresses the reason for your block. Please read and understand WP:GAB before appealing again (if at all).

Also see WP:RGW and WP:SOAPBOX. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That is what got you blocked. We are here to build an encyclopaedia. You were here to fight against information you do not like.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]