Mangalam Agrawal

Welcome!

Hi Mangalam Agrawal! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Capitals00 (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mangalam Agrawal, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:President's Colour Award have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thank you for helping me for my page. Now, I wrote in my words about the Indian Context of the President's Colours and I hope this would not violate the policy of Wikipedia. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The new version looks okay. Thanks for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State and UT Police Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 06:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: President's Colour Award has been accepted

President's Colour Award, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank You so much.... Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Silver Trumpet and Trumpet Banner Presentation Ceremony (January 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Silver Trumpet and Trumpet Banner Presentation Ceremony may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mangalam Agrawal! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, please delete the page as soon as possible. Thank You. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bajrang Dal, 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. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 11:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Sangh Parivar, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So, please don't dent the image of an organisation without any proven facts and knowledge. Don't spread your communism here. Go anywhere else. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You stop your disruptive editing and dent an nationalist organization. Change your mindset you hypocrite. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that the Bajrang Dal is a militant organisation. Please see Special:Permalink/1007358857 § cite note-militant-1 for the list. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and the cited academic sources overwhelmingly agree that militant is an accurate descriptor for the Bajrang Dal. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not any judge or court had given their decision that this is a militant organisation. If any, then provide the copy of judgement. If someone write a book on you and dent your image without any fact, Will you use it as a reference here? This is hypocrisy. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If content from "someone" is published in a high-quality academic source, then yes, it will be included even if it describes a subject negatively. — Newslinger talk 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok then Because of you and Wikipedia truth will never change. Bajrang Dal, RSS and BJP are the nationalist organisations. Congratulations you and Wikipedia for your hypocrisy. At least now, I would never use Wikipedia as an authentic source of information. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If the content is reliably sourced, it will be included even if it is negative. — Newslinger talk 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want it to be censored as well but a book can't be a reliable source because the claim was not on the base of any court's Judgement, it was just written by the So called Intellectuals with Communist and Anti-Hindu Mindset. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that the authors of the 18 high-quality academic sources are "So called Intellectuals with Communist and Anti-Hindu Mindset". Your accusation is also a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. High-quality academic sources are among the best sources available on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why I am saying that you both and hypocrites. So, what they have to proof that it is a militant organisation. I think they even don't know the meaning of 'militant' and if it is militant then why is not banned currently? Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few excerpts:

• Valiani, Arafaat A. (November 11, 2011). Militant publics in India: Physical culture and violence in the making of a modern polity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-230-37063-0. Retrieved 17 February 2021 – via Google Books. In 2002, almost 2,000 Muslims were killed in carefully planned attacks by the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. The state was governed by the BJP in 2002, and some BJP representatives brazenly justified and abetted the violence.
• Jerryson, Michael (July 15, 2020). Religious Violence Today: Faith and Conflict in the Modern World. ABC-CLIO. p. 275. ISBN 978-1-4408-5991-5. Retrieved 13 February 2021 – via Google Books. The magazine Tehelka carried out a six-month undercover investigation in 2007 that resulted in video evidence that the riots were organized and supported by Gujarat police and Chief Minister Modi. The video also implicated several members of the Bajrang Dal (a militant Hindu nationalist group) and the BJP (one of India's main political parties).
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (2010). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. Primus Books. ISBN 9789380607047. Retrieved 17 February 2021 – via Google Books. In May–June, the VHP provided itself with an organization, which assembled young Hindu militants, the Bajrang Dal. Its founder, Vinay Katiyar, had until then been a pracharak of the RSS. However, the Bajrang Dal proved to be less disciplined than the RSS and its violent utterances as well as actions were to precipitate many communal riots.

The cited sources go into much more detail than just the quotes, and you can view the context in the Google Books links. — Newslinger talk 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

They all are hypocrites. They will never tell you that why the riots were started, what was the immediate reason. First, the Muslim mob from a mosque ran to the Godhra Station and set the Train on fire in which there was Hindu Pilgrims, they all were martyred. And they were not planned riots they were Anger of the people. But they will never told you this. And if the BJP Govt was accused then why President's Rule was not invoked in the State, why Supreme Court not found them Guilty and Why the then CM of Gujarat is the current Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi. That means we all are militants because we vote him. BJP is running government in 18 States/UTs in India and this is not a joke. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe the riots to be justified is completely separate from whether the Bajrang Dal is a militant organization. The Militant article currently describes the term as "Militant means vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'", and the academic sources have provided enough information to show that the Bajrang Dal fits this description. — Newslinger talk 12:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Why it is a separate issue, when your so called Intellectuals justified that Muslim Mob and also tried to dent the image of a popular leader. Hypocrites. As I said you and Wikipedia don't need facts but you are turning into a propoganda machine for Left and Communists. Congratulations you your hypocrite academicians. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, the academics who authored the 18 high-quality reliable sources represent a diverse range of subject-matter experts, including: Joseph Alter, Christophe Jaffrelot, Amrita Basu, Swati Parashar, Anand Dibyesh, Eko Lyombe, and about a dozen more. Wikipedia content is mainly based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources (e.g. court rulings) or personal opinions. Whether the content is favorable or unfavorable to the ruling party is irrelevant. — Newslinger talk 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok so what do you say about Communists, Communist Party of China, Pakistan Jihaad, etc. You never call them as militants and terrorists because that doesn't suit your narrative and propoganda. Mangalam Agrawal (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have high-quality reliable sourcing that shows this as a significant aspect of those topics, feel free to introduce them to the respective talk pages and discuss with the editors there. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)