User talk:Mrt3366

Mihaiam

These discussions have been closed. Please do not modify them.
Please do not modify the following
Friendly advice I'm going to attempt to help you here, and I hope you take my advice. I think you are starting to snowball into a pattern of conflict and frustration that I'm afraid is going to end with your giving up on editing, which is not an ideal outcome. I've seen this happen many times before to new editors. I can see why your content is being reverted: It's not that your additions are without merit, it's that they do not use sources that meet WP:RS. I honestly think you should take a breather for a few days, find some good sources, and your additions will be more likely to be welcomed. I know you feel like you are being attacked from all angles, and very few people are at their best in those circumstances. --Laser brain (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Check this, he reverted most (if not all) of my edits. Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources. I sincerely think he is trying to start multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet). I'm really discouraged by this sort of behaviour. Can't you do anything to help me? --DrYouMe (Talk?) 02:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I told this to him- @Mihaiam "There are also no reliable sources for the contribution" —and you're the arbitrator? By unreliable sources you mean "vegetarian organisation" and vegetarian nutritionists and doctors of medicine like Milton Mills, William C. Roberts, John A. McDougall? Then you go on calling me a "propagandist"? Well give me one scientific report that says humans are anatomically optimized to eat raw meat or at least a source that says humans are anatomically optimized to process cooked meat without aggravating any serious health-issues (see this)? And exactly what scientific data did Mills provide that is scientifically erroneous? Like what is the acidity of human-stomach when food is inside stomach? and then you tout "veganskeptic.blogspot" as a reliable source for high-level scientific knowledge? Isn't it a tad silly to compare a Nutritionist who has been backed by the claims of other MDs and has a doctoral degree, to a random blogger? Where is the scientific journal that says humans are not herbivores? But when it comes to question your meat-eating ways, you cling to a random person as opposed to a slew of MDs who are cogently saying that the practice of eating meat is "unhealthy", "unneeded" and "unethical" (or something of that sort). Meat-eating is at best utterly redundant. I repeat, please show some credible scientific analysis of Human anatomy that firmly proves humans are purely naturally omnivorous (i.e. able to digest raw meat, or if not raw meat then any meat with good health), that's all it'll to convince me. I may be fully wrong, I'm at least open to that possibility, but are you? I want what's best for me. I occasionally like stew myself. :D I am yet to receive a reply! --DrYouMe (Talk?) 03:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I am trying to help you deal with the conflict without getting too frustrated. Without taking sides or speaking to other users' behavior, I'm simply suggesting that you will have a much better editing experience here if you take a bit of time to regroup and get better sources. --Laser brain (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I don't want you to take sides but I wanted you to know exactly what's going on here. Your suggestion is much appreciated. Thank you, :D --DrYouMe (Talk?) 03:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Template:Z8--John (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Edits on Gadhimai festival Your edits in Gadhimai festival are controversial/disputed. Certainly, your inclusion of vegetarianism and Hindu scriptures etc DO NOT deal with the issue and need to be deleted here or moved to appropriate articles. On the other hand, it also seems that you are probably involved in an edit war involving socks. My suggestion: please propose your changes in talk page. I will vet out the refs and comment on what is acceptable or not and why as a neutral third party. Propose one change at a time. However, do understand that whole sections abour vegeterianism in Hindu scriptures etc are unwarranted. Stick closely to material relevant to this article and use reliable sources. I have come to this article on being alerted by a probable sock account on my talk page. However, I have no view on this except relevance, NPOV, proportionate, notable etc. AshLin (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) OKAY. I'll try to follow your rules. Thank you! --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" (Talk?) 12:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. Ha Ha Ha!!!

What could I do now?

Check this page and tell me what's my fault. Yesterday I got into an argument about vegetarianism and stuff. Since then I'm being harassed by Edward321 and his sock mihaiam (I'm 100% certain look at their writing styles and all).

All my edits are getting reverted from these 2 accounts. I am not complaining about other reversions pertaining to vegetarianism because they are still under question.

But recently, he reverted this and It's wholly unrelated to the topic of the argument. Check their today's contributions (Edward321 and mihaiam) you'll see mostly deletions of my posts. I'm offended by this sort of behaviour. --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In the dif you cited, the source you added does not discuss Gadhimai festival, the subject of the article. Including sources that do not directly discuss the subject of the article constitute original research and/or synthesis, even if you feel their content is directly relevant to the material in question. For example, an article discussing ghosts appearing in photographs cannot use sources discussing various artifacts and image flaws found in photos, even if the flaws in question are or seem to be identical to some of the "ghosts" seen in photos, unless the source directly refers to the image flaws sometimes being presented as images of ghosts.

If you feel one editor is a sock puppet or meat puppet of another, please read WP:SOCK and report the issue at WP:SPI. Repeatedly claiming that an editor is using sock puppetry without reporting the issue may be seen as a personal attack. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Could you please elaborate? Are you referring to the verses of hindu scriptures that I added? If so, then I'd like to inform you that the subject of the article is implicitly about the massive animal sacrifice done in the name of Hinduism. The article doesn't focus on anything else. I didn't only cite the scriptures but also one other source that purports to tell what is the real story behind the origin of Gadhimai Festival (I didn't claim it as the sole truth either but it provided a food for thought).

If, according to you that is original research, then everything is original research, won't you say? If not in the gadhimai festival article then where should we give a chance to Hinduism as a religion of non-violence? The article attributes all the animal killings of the festival to Hinduism. Isn't that a sufficient ground to shed light on the religion's actual position. Besides, the animal killings of the festival are associated to Hinduism but based on what? Isn't that an original research or a subject of personal opinion too? Thank you I await your reply. --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z8--John (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mrt3366

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Mrt3366, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Introduction to Wikipedia | Tutorial
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! AshLin (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  
  
  
  

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

AshLin (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW your username reads like an ancient license-plate from my home-state. :) AshLin (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

I've only just noticed your response to me over at AN/I, after I saw your block notice.

You seem to have got into a bit of a pickle, here! I can see that you feel very strongly about your subject; Wikipedia attracts passionate people, and it's also a total honey-trap for people on the Autism spectrum (I'm a high-functioning autistic myself, and I know quite a few other editors who fall into the same area of that spectrum).

I do have a lot of sympathy for the position you've found yourself in; I can kinda feel the pain and frustration coming out of what you write.

Having said that, though, you did go waaaaaay over the top, there! Take the block time-out to chill a bit, if you feel it's advisable, take a break from actual editing for an extra two or three days, and just do a heap of reading around the policy pages, to get more of a feel for how things work here. You're welcome to "lurk" on my talk page, and join in with some general chat (if you feel like doing so) once you're unblocked. My talk is a Mandatory Truce Zone (all weapons have to be left outside the door); but ... I have a lot of watchers on my page, who will often join in with some help, tips, or just plain moral support as and when we can. Quite a few of my talk-page stalkers are on the autism spectrum, so we're very understanding of people who have some glitches with social interactions. (I'm not suggesting that you're in that spectrum with us, but just pointing out that we have good reason for understanding.)

When you come back to editing again, I'd suggest you focus on something completely different for a while; maybe just typo-fixing, copy-editing, finding sources for unreferenced articles – we have literally thousands of articles which need some intelligent tidying-up, and staying away from the subjects you've been addressing so far will, in the long term, help you a lot. All the best, Pesky (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"I can kinda feel the pain and frustration coming out of what you write." You bet! I am indeed frustrated, disappointed or should I use the words like disheartened and disgusted. Not because of the block though. It's because of the spiteful, hateful and downright vindictive behaviour some people have in wikipedia and with profound connivance of some administrators even. Mihaiam is a sock of Edward321 just look at their contributions for past 24 hours. Why should I be involved in anymore editing (although I really want to) when I know that some daft hater may simply revert ALL of them without caring much about silly things like justification or consequence and I will be blocked as a result?

I shouldn't be involved(saving others the trouble of blocking me and reverting my edits repeatedly). Wikipedia, like any other bureaucracy, is ruled by bullies (including some administrators). However, the real bureaucracies do give you a chance to settle the dispute in court or police station. And there, at least you can afford to not be so utterly helpless about it. Here my edits were labelled as propaganda (implying that I'm a propagandist) after all my edits were rashly reverted (although they had the chance to simply modify inaccuracies with good sources, they chose to delete the whole section), nothing was done and because nothing was done, the reversion of my edits only accelerated (now, if not all, most of my edits are entirely reverted). Then that genius John wrote on my talk-page "Please do not edit war with others there. Also, never do anything like this again please. If I see any more nonsense like this you will be looking at a long block." I'm edit-warring? I usually specifically mention (no edit-war intended) after my edit, in description.

Most of my friggin edits are getting reverted and I'm the one he deemed to be the edit-warrior? Come on now, will you. You don't want to help me. Frankly, I don't know what you want. Have a beautiful time here at the wikipedia.

Humanity is withering away much faster here at the wikipedia than in the real world. The real world is sick in my view. But, in comparison to the demented arrangement here at wikipedia, real world seems like a much better place to dwell. Thank God science doesn't progress like that in real world. --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 00:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with your personal attacks. Your insistence that Mihaiam is a sock of Edward321 is beyond belief. Mihaiam has been editing since 2007 and Edward321 since 2006. Until very recently, they have not edited the same articles at all until two days ago. If you seriously believe these accounts were established and used regularly for over 5 years in the expectation of someday being used to "get" you, file a report at WP:SPI. Otherwise, I will assume your claim is a baseless personal attack, a blockable offense. Consider this your final warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: