User talk:Msec109

About Praful Patel

Hello,

There has been some adding-deleting on this page. Allegation in Political career are removed! Not sure those are removed for best interest. Please check.

Kapil.

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Crime master gogo, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Crime master gogo was changed by Msec109 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965409 on 2011-12-12T15:43:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tryst B58Jwl.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tryst B58Jwl.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Uttar Pradesh NRHM scam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

:- ) DCS 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael O'Dwyer

Care to explain why you deleted the correct honorific (Sir)? O'Dwyer held two knighthoods and was therefore entitled to the honorific, which is always included in Wikipedia article leads where appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see any references of him being knighted. It wasn't an act of vandalism Msec109 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

His postnominal letters indicate his knighthoods (GCIE, KCSI). I didn't think it was an act of vandalism, just of being unaware of our usual procedures. Leaving an edit summary explaining why you're doing something is a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Raghuram Rajan because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It doesn't matter whether an entry is sourced or not, if it is not relevant to the notability of the person it doesn't go in. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sidharth Malhotra

Thank you so much for your contribution on Sidharth Malhotra your act seem to be quite dubious, it is acknowledge to everybody to contribute in foundation but you should be aware of your acts, since you have any doubts do clear me on my talk page or dispose your clarifications here before you revert my editing. Also, you are not the major contributor of the page and even your global contribution are below average. If you want to contribute to the page please feel free to do it. You can remove this message if you want so. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be respectful. My contribution to the page or global edits are not pertinent to our discussion. My act was to remove un-referenced and un-encyclopedic stuff from that article. You have repeatedly cleared up your talk page, hence I didn't mention it there. The present quality is not according to the standards of Wikipedia, and has many opinions. So, I don't think there was any need to revert my edit. Plus, you have removed referenced information about his family, which accounts to vandalism. Can you please clarify the aforementioned issues. Please explain your edits, how they contribute to Wikipedia and why they should not be reverted. Many thanks. Msec109 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi

Hi, you reverted my edits about Sonia Gandhi, citing them " meaningless accusations", and the sources I provided- which all are reputed national newspapers "not good enough". If you are unsatisfied with the formatting of the sources, you can edit it. However, I don't see why, what I have added shouldn't be there on that wiki page. Please explain your actions, or else I would have to undo it. Thanks. Msec109 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I reverted two additions of yours, and the reasons were different (though perhaps I did not make that very clear) so I will deal with them separately.

1) The bit about Sonia being in control was referenced to good sources; however, those good sources are only reporting on an accusation made by an ex-PMO man and the BJP. It is not the newspapers making the allegations. Political parties trade accusations every day, and so that does not deserve a place.

2) There has been some discussion about mentioning her wealth, but consensus as of now is against. Why don't you look at the TP archives, and if you're not convinced, you can bring it up again. In this case, though, I was simply enforcing consensus. Does that make sense? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The HuffPo estimate was specifically retracted. "Sonia Gandhi and the former emir of Qatar Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani have been removed from this list. Gandhi was originally included based on a listing on a third party site which was subsequently called into question. Our editors have been unable to verify the amount, removed the link, and regret any confusion. Qatar's emir was succeeded by his son Tamim in 2013." [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Vanamonde93. These accusations are not everyday political mudslinging or namecalling. These are serious allegations by a notable person (ex advisor to PM, in his book). The opposition and many reputed journalists, newspapers and editorials also have the same view. I mean everybody knows who was calling the shots. If you see the edit, I have used the word "alleged" and haven't confirmed anything. As with most Indian politicians there are only allegations of wrongdoing, very few of them are confirmed by courts or the politicians themselves. I am still not convinced why a news this big and controversial, doesn’t deserve a place in the neutral Wikipedia article. It is certainly more notable than her fashion sense and awards, which are there in the article (not that I am saying that they shouldn’t be there). If you may feel you can add another section of “controversies” and shift what I have written there, but totally undoing the edit was not necessary. Do you see what I am getting at? Msec109 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And yes, the HuffPost info may have been outdated, thanks for pointing that out User:NeilN. Msec109 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. It is currently major news, to be sure, but you did not provide any source to show that this was a bigger deal than any other of the hundred controversies that dog all politicians. You clearly believe that, and I have no issues with such a belief, but you have to provide sources demonstrating notability, not just existence. If you feel her fashion sense is not important (and I would tend to agree with you there) bring it up on the talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not about my belief. Every news-source in the country is talking about it. Two prominent bureaucrats (recently a book by coal secretary Parekh as well) have said this thing that PM was not the power center. This is a reason enough given the stature of the bureaucrats. It is not a very personal issue either, these allegations have national importance, it affects the country's government. Plus, it is all over newspapers, editorials. You can see them yourself. As I said earlier, if these are allegations by opposition and bureaucrats, they should find a place in the article. We should objectively put up what is there in the news. It is not about your judgement of what's notable either (sorry if I sound rude). There is no point is pasting multiple links here if you don't read news or haven't come across it or don't google it. How do I prove its notabilty to you? Msec109 (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Afzal Guru. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I undid the edit less that three times, which is not an edit war. After that I said sorry on the talk page, as I did not want to engage any further. Maybe you should check before posting sanctimonious messages. Everybody is contributing equally here, and nobody likes being preached. Msec109 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for accepting the point. When you violate policies people will tell you that you are doing so. There is no need take offence for it. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Msec109. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Msec109. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Msec109. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)