User talk:Callmehelper

February 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to KRSNA (rapper)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chanakya, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mentioned a citing source? Those changes I make is entirely based on RTI file on Archeological evidence of India (ASI) for the actual historical existence of Chanakya. ASI replied there is no any historical existence of Chanakya or Kautilya. Callmehelper (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTI and ASI are both governmental departments and are not scholarly in nature. Scholarly consensus matters here the most and that is not favorable to your edits. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Constitution of India. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey yo ratnahastin .

Please Look at the constitution of India where I edit the things that you called as a disruptive .

Please read those only two or three lines and make video in youtube and called ambedkar give credit to B N Rau only and give this wikipedia page as a evidence. But by the next few lines of speech make clear that he want to give credit to all the members who give the major contribution during the making of constitution.

So I add a bunch of lines more of that original speech so it appeared or giving the full intention of that speech.

But you remove those additional content and called it not necessary is entirely wrong and people when read it will be completely mislead. So I want to you change it and make it fair. I am waiting for 1 or 2 days , otherwise I will do again what I do in previous time. Putting original speech that make fair thoughts is good rather than giving one line that misguide the people.

I always follow the guidelines of wikipedia. But some people don't understand it .

I hope you got my point. Callmehelper (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is succinct enough. You don't have to provide a larger version because it is simply not needed there. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't understand indian political scenario or your thoughts are completely Brahmanised. So clearly I have to do it myself. Callmehelper (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my comment about your thoughts and logic was inappropriate, and I apologize for that. I shouldn't make this type of comments.

But please try to understand my point of view as a neutral perspective. Callmehelper (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banka district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amarpur Assembly constituency. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Prasad Singh

I have fixed the page, but kindly add more references to it. Try finding some reliable sources. Thank You. Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definately will. Thanks for improving it ✊ Callmehelper (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper Use cite book for adding books, don't write in Hindi, use English only. Focus on adding reliable sources not information. Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hi Callmehelper! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Ambedkar Jayanti several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Ambedkar Jayanti, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am well aware of Wikipedia policy. if i make any editing, i completely rely with sources that are very reliable.

you should discuss first with me if you have problem with it without reverting first.

you don't read citations I guess. all the revised version are well are arranged with very reliable sources.

without reverting first you should tell me where i put any wrong claim and doens't provide source for this .

but i guess you take citations a Joke. otherwise you would be well agreed with what i did. Callmehelper (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are entirely problematic. You are adding "Dr." in front of Ambedkar in violation of MOS:DOCTOR. You are adding the debunked claim of Ambedkar being "architect of the constitution" when this was already refuted here. You should self-revert. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I removed Dr. from his name.

but discription like principal architect of constitution of India or father of Indian constitution is totally factual for Ambedkar. It is widely used by reputable news articles, journals, books. It is not a claim that should be debunked. it is now become an inherent part of his legacy.

If you still disagree, then in talk page i will cite almost all the famous news article from BBC to Hindu and Journals and book by historian like Eleanor Zelliot etc that regard him such notion.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Capitals00 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which page I edited which is related to india afghanistan and pakistan?

give me whole context. Callmehelper (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]