Hi Sandeepsp4u, Welcome to Wikipedia. I understand that you may be a bit upset that I reverted your edits to India. Please don't take it personally. Being a new user, I owe you an explanation . I was a bit busy so I could not put this post immediately. My apologies.

As you may have gone through the Welcome message above, Wikipedia works on some prinicples, one of them being Achieve Consensus. Editors on Wikipedia often disagree on the content , (such as in our case :-)). Dissucion and providing suitable references is the way out.

This is especially true in case of important articles like India which is a featured article. See the star on the top right hand side. That signifies that this is an excellent article which has been achieved through a lot of efforts and we must keep up this level of quality. This does not mean that we don't edit the article at all!

Given that a large number of users would like to edit this article there are bound to be disagreements. So the general procedure on such important articles is that editors first discuss major changes on the article's talk page. See Talk:India. This is the discussion page for the article India. Just take a look at it and you will get an idea of the amount of discussions that take place!

Of course you need not discuss everthing on every article. Small changes such as spelling corrections etc can be done without prior discussions. Also, if you are working on an article on which there are few or no other editors you can avoid discussing all edits. However if there is a disagreement it is best to discuss before making any further edits. Feel free to discuss any changes you want to make to the India article on the talk page.

Secondly let me explain why I mentioned personal opinions and prefereces in my summary. I was concered with this edit [1]. Your edit summary did seem to me like a personal opinion. Wikipedia. That is why I commented as such. If you feel that it is a valid point we can discuss it further on the article talk page.

Regards --Deepak D'Souza 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find references for Estonia–India relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded the pics without verifying the copy right. Thanks for point out to me and correcting them. Also, I have changed the two references that you pointed out as dubious. I have included references from Frontline for the same now.

Btw, I did not get why you called one of my edits as vandalism. It was indeed a valid fact quoted from reliable sources. I had provided the citations as well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 11:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your references. --Anupkc (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandeep, this is the last paragraph in Britannia's article on Hanuman

Hanuman is also a popular deity in Tibet, Southeast Asia, Japan, and China, and throughout this area many temples are erected for his worship and districts of towns bear his name. Outside India, rather different tales are told of him. Although steadfastly chaste in the Sanskrit tradition, for instance, he has wives and children in other traditions. He has been identified as the inspiration for the monkey hero of the great Chinese poem Xiyouji (“Journey to the West”). In the late 20th century he was depicted as a fierce superhero in Indian comic books, and his image was blazoned on the banners of the most militant Hindu organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; “National Volunteer Party”). The Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus entellus), one of the most common Indian monkeys, is named after the Ramayana character.

It indeed contains the exact wordings referenced in teh article. So please revert the edits, Sandeep.--Anupkc (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep, why did you remove the senetence on internal threats in the Mission section ? What did you mean by your edit comment- " In that there is now word specifically used for the threat to nation" ?

Also please, mention your reason for edits in the discussion section. --Anupkc (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also , please clarify why you removed the tect in the Mission section with the following comment "In that there is now word specifically used for the threat to nation" --Anup (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, before undoing edit, please discuss it. Why did you remove my edits omn foreign funding? I have clearly explained above how the previous statements in the article were unreferenced, factually misleading etc. --Anup (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep, did you check the link I gave for Bunch of Thoughts? Did you check teh book? It has chapters dedicated to each of these internal threats ( whcih are explicitly called so). Before doing the edits, discuss it, verify the reference etc. Don't misuse teh word "Vandalism" - Anup (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About "That sections is necessar to prove that the alegation from SFH was wrong. If we will not provide that then it will be biased article" You may or may not belive that the allegation is wrong. Even in my erecent edit, I have provided enough info on IRDF's rebuttal. I have stated how the pprevious statements were factually incorrect and unreferenced. If you have any comments on that, let me know --Anup (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following users are being invited to the reliable sources notice board at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_the_following_sources_and_articles_reliable.3F to present their views on the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:

1. sandeepsp4u
2. deshabhakta
3. nihar
4. unspokentruth

If you do not respond to this, and continue to engage in editing war, you may be blocked from editing. Evox777 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sandeep, You have already raised the 2 links below on the RSNB, where they failed to gain any traction. Why are you pushing this material again?

1. http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1
2. http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/

RSNB link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_the_following_sources_and_articles_reliable.3F

One more thing, could you please add some reliable references for the images you have posted. You can't expect people to take your word for it. There is no proof that the individuals in the picture are RSS men and the pictures have been taken where you say. If you can't find any reliable references, I suggest removing the material.

Thanks Evox777 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of proof you want as the images are taken by a group of mine. how can you claim that the man in the picture are no RSS man its you who is raising the doubt so you have to prove that the man in the pic are not the RSS man and not me--Sandeep (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per wikipedia's guidlines, the burden of proof is on you not me.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

PS: You did not reply to my first question. The RSNB already reached a consensus that britannica e. is a reliable source, why are you raising questions about its reliability again?--Evox777 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion onto RSS's talk page. Please reply over there. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Regarding_the_images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evox777 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandeep , good that you are learning by wathcing me. Like they say: Fools learn from their mistakes; wise men learn from the mistakes of others :-). Unfortunately, I am not a very good copyeditor. I make a lot of typos and grammar mistakes. Actually Im too lazy to do it and mostly it is other editors who clean up my mistakes. I will look at the Valsad District article soon. If you need guidlines on copyediting you can read Wikipedia:How to copy-edit and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Deepak D'Souza 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??
• I didn't think I would to do this, but now (after seen that) I do. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry. I was a bit angry when Which Wikipedia treat similar cases in different ways. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandeepsp4u, I've been looking at your edits on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the discussion on the talk page, and it apparently you keep removing information that speaks against the reputation of the organization. I'm sure you want to promote their reputation, but please don't remove other people's edits to do so, and saying their sources are not neutral doesn't make it so. You say "i am always ready for discussion and moreover this adding is disputed and so it must be resolved before adding on article," but that's utter nonsense - you don't want to discuss it, and you keep removing sourced text (calling it "controversial") and adding your own. Also, you're apparently the only one who's disputing the information. Please, please stop going against consensus, and discuss your editing on the article's talk page. Beyond a certain point we have to consider your actions POV pushing to the point of vandalism. If you need anything just let me know Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandeepsp4u. You have new messages at Taelus's talk page.
Message added 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Taelus (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to ensure it is clear, you should not continually revert things without discussion, as this is an edit war. Gain consensus, then make change. I believe that a discussion is being formed soon on the topic regarding the neutrality and reliability of the sources which hopefully you will be notified of. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandeepsp4u. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 10:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BelovedFreak 10:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me add encouragement: Please sign your posts. If you are not proud of the contribution, please reconsider it. If you are, please take credit for it.- Sinneed 05:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

testing signs --Sandeep (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so it works now?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting style and approach remind me of those of another editor. Do you use any other accounts besides this one? If so, please review wp:sock.

Please also review wp:talk page guidelines, and the basic rules of Wikipedia, the wp:pillars.

wp:Wikipedia is not censored. If you are unhappy with what the source says, you may want to take it up with the publisher. If you are concerned that the publisher is not reliable, you may want to pursue having it disallowed at wp:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. Unless the community decides that the source you are removing is unacceptable, your repeated removal of the source is wp:vandalism.- Sinneed 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Rajiv Dixit, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Dixit. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. *Kat* (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I spent a good half hour smoothing out the article (language, removing redundancies, fixing the formatting). Along the way, I did some research and that's why I'm not sure he is prominent enough to merit his own article. --*Kat* (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plz have a look at Swami Dayananda Saraswati for recent changes made by others.--Onef9day ^Talk! 10:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up for the new pages incubation trial! The instructions are on the page itself - any questions or quibbles before you get started? Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are suggesting tutorial to me??!! When did you start editing Wikipedia? Aravind V R (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If you know that, then you could have checked my contributions page as well to know whether I need to be suggested anything by you. BTW You are all welcome to point out any mistake I have done, if any Aravind V R (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandeepsp4u. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Untagged/KarnatakaLinks.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	Thank You
	With the help of contributors like you, the Tag and Assess 2012 project has achieved the planned objectives. Close to 65,000 articles have been assessed and 19,000 articles have been added to the scope of the project. Please do watch out for the post tag and assess activities. Thanks a lot. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

i started creating an article but later by mistake the name of he article was wrong and need to change it so pls let me knw how can i change the name of an article Help me with... Sandeep (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you are talking about Draft:Traitavada are you? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this page: Rigveda Bhasya Bhumika? Please read this article: WP:Moving a page and if that does not help, let me know. I will follow your page for a few days to see if you need additional help on this matter. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 12:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help friends i was talking about rigved bhasya bhumika and traitvad both i will try that moving the article and will see what i get --Sandeep (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rigvedadi Bhashya Bhumika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilson (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Sandeepsp4u, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]