User talk:Mittgaurav

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Alpha beta filter 0.85-0.005.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alpha beta filter 0.85-0.005.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Parliament of India#Houses of Parliament

Hi. I've added a response to correct something you wrote on the talk page for the "Parliament of India" article. I'm letting you know here as a courtesy, in case you do not have that page on your "watchlist". Regards, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Andrew. Mittgaurav (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Tcov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Program (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Macaulay

I've revised your edit at Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay. To call it racist, as you did in the edit summary, is to impose modern mores on a historical statement and that is not good writing. What he said was not racist in its time, however much some people today might cringe. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for input.. Could you provide me with any documented reasons on why 'to impose modern mores on historical statements' is not good? Mittgaurav (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

just checked, you removed it altogether.. that I think is better anyways.. but to get a perspective on editing would be nice anyways..Mittgaurav (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

When I was studying history at university, it was all about assimilating facts, assessing their worth, interpreting and explaining a theme. One had to simultaneously live "in the time" and apply modern thought-processes. Calling someone a racist, for example, when the very concept of racism was unknown would demand some careful wording. Fortunately, this is an encyclopedia and we are not suppose to interpret etc: that is the job of our secondary sources. It is for this reason that an awful lot of adjectives, such as "famously" and "infamously", are not merely subjective and sweeping but also usually redundant within the scope of the Wikipedia project. If a secondary source of merit uses such an adjective then that source could be quoted (it is the opinion of Professor X that ...") but otherwise just don't use the emotive words in the first place.

Does this make any more sense? - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't use adjectives unless quoting meritorious source.. got it.. thanks! Mittgaurav (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not saying that you should never use adjectives but certainly ones of this nature should be avoided because they are judgemental, As should phrases such as "breathed his last" when you mean "he died". WP:WORDS gives some guidance. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

great.. will go through.. just figured out how I was wrong..

Suits episode summary

Thanks -- that makes more sense than what I had. Forstman referred to Sidwell being Mike's friend and I thought he was referring to Harvey. (I am 117.62.219.28 as well.) 128.119.247.147 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes

Please don't ever accept pending changes that introduce unsourced or poorly sourced personal information to biography articles as you did here. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 6 October 2015 (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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mittgaurav. 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, Mittgaurav. 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)

The burgundies didn't hand over Joan to the English, the English bought her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie12345678901 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-awaazdo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-awaazdo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)