User talk:Just another Wikipedian editor

January 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rohit Sardana, 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. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate:- You should have read the edit summary. I had already given a valid reason for that. The source wasn't reliable. Alt news and The term used like GODI already states what I want to say. Thanks.

Alt News is a standard reliable source, its also not the only source used, there is an article from Nepal Press and from Newslaundry which you haven't addressed. If you think none of these sources are reliable, you can take it to WP:RSN; though I'm fairly certain it wouldn't go the way you want. Note that Newsalundry has previously been discussed there with consensus that it is a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296). Whether any source uses the term "godi" is irrelevant to its reliability. It might be a better idea for you to take a look at the talk page of the article where the material has already been discussed and make your objections known there. By the way, pings don't work if you don't sign your comments. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you suggestion. Alt News is a Left-leaning platform that calls itself a buster of such fake news. It busts all the fake news spread by the right wing but is soft on the left wing of fake news. And, how come Newslaundry is a reliable source. I have seen that there are many articles written by Sharjeel Usmani who abused the dead Rohit Sardana. Secondly, the word "Godi" sounds just as cheap as "andhbhakt" and this clearly shows the intention of the writer. Hence, I am not satisfied with these news sources and find them biased of their agenda. Anyway, I'll check it out later as it's pretty much the same today.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,User talk:Tayi Arajakate, how does consensus work, Do editors vote if these sources are reliable or not? What are the criteria for that? (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Fake news in India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from ~~certain namespaces ((Article))~~ editing the articles Fake news in India and Rohit Sardana directly for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why am I blocked? I agreed to discuss. No vandalizing is being done from my side yet I am being blocked simultaneously. I am trying to follow the guidelines as much as possible. But, please don't do this to me again.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree,Do you have any specific reason to block me? I was adding the edit summary, and adding the discussion to the talk pages as well, but you just blocked me before I could finish the discussion on the talk pages. Please unblock me so that I could finish the discussion.

You are not blocked from continuing to discuss on talk pages, no worries! The block only applies to articles. This ensures that you actually finish the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've added the discussion [1] but please shorten the length. 2 weeks into my editing is simply large for me. And please ignore some of my mistakes as I am trying much to do something constructie at the Wikipedia.

Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a 2 week block from all articles was indeed a bit much, sorry. I have reduced the block to the two pages Fake news in India and Rohit Sardana now, so you can freely edit all other articles as well. With this limitation to the two pages, I believe 2 weeks are fine though. The discussion may take a while and there's no urgent time limit that would justify shortening the block duration.

Please wait a day or two for the others to join the discussion. If they don't join the discussion, feel free to invite them with a short neutral message on their user talk pages ("Please join the discussion at [[Talk:....]]"). Advice for dealing with users who refuse to discuss can be found at WP:DISCFAIL, which is a very helpful essay I personally found useful in a similar situation.

Please let me know if any questions about the process arise. The people at the Teahouse are very knowledgeable and helpful; you may like to ask them for advice.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove any messages from your talk page, at any time you like. For example, if the red warnings or the block notice above are inconvenient, feel free to remove them. You have already read them, and they were only intended for your information, so it's fine to remove them. You can always have a look at the history of this page if you'd like to read them again. There is only one exception: If you appeal the block using the {{unblock}} template, and if the appeal is declined by another administrator, then the decline message may not be removed while the block is active (see WP:UP#CMT). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, user:ToBeFree. I wish you a prosperous new year ahead.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the initial over-reaction! Thank you and a happy new year to you too!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, No worries Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hindutva. 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. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The user has resumed reversion at Rohit Sardana, merely 3 hours after the block expired, instead of discussing their issues on the article's talk page, like asked. Would you consider another block from the page, or is it too soon? — DaxServer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer:-I still haven't changed that part. I've left it on the discussion page. I have reverted because it is already mentioned in a later section. You can see that Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following part is already mentioned in the career section, so it was doublure:-

"Sardana was considered to be a part of the pro-government media establishment in India and has also been criticised for subservience towards Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party." And, if you still have problems, I'll revert my edits but note that I still haven't removed that part rather have added it to the talk pagesJust another Wikipedian editor (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Just another Wikipedian editor, the thing is, the dispute was about exactly this text, so you do seem to be pushing your point further by edit warring. Please also have a look at WP:LEAD: The lead section of an article is (also) "a summary of its most important contents". A summary necessarily duplicates the article content. That's its purpose. Adding information to the lead that isn't present in the rest of the article would be problematic; summarizing the article content is fine.

Regarding self-reverting your edits for now, I was about to request this, so please do so. Thank you very much for proposing this intermediate solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~ ToBeFree, Thanks for the suggestion. The main reason I undone that edit was because it duplicated the content on the summary part as well. Anyway, this part will also be discussed. Thanks again for speaking politely to me.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, you can revisit that Rohit Sardana. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding! — DaxServer (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Just another Wikipedian editor! 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! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

See WP:RS and WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notices

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see similar sanctions on almost every Indian editor or editor who is indulged editing Indian related pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just another Wikipedian editor (talk • contribs) 16 january 2022 (UTC)

The text above is a notice, not a sanction. The sanctions are imposed on editors who're unable to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Experienced editors are quite good at spotting the newbies who're going to run into trouble in this regard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be on every editor editing pages related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I've got an alert on my page that I gave myself. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk for a minute?

Hi I saw you are constantly reverting edits and vandalizing pages. Please do not vandalize the pages. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsheyaSagar (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Then please see who is doing that [2], [3], [4],..and many more.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly reverting the changes made by previous editors which is against the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsheyaSagar (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rule never says not to revert vandalized changes. Please don't do it further. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just another Wikipedian editor Thanks for being vigilant. I guess you are already aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) "plz." has 4 characters, "please" has 6. The former looks unprofessional, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was informal. Anyway, I'll keep these things in mind next time @User:ToBeFree. Thanks for informing me. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I just thought I should point it out: If noone says anything and just silently thinks the same, that would be sad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And since you have become my friend, it would be better if we share ideas than to think quitely and this will contribute to rectifying the ongoing mistakes, I wish you the best ahead!Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DaxServer for your appreciation , I mean they are constantly spraying acronyms all over the pages that have the respective name spelled or the actor who performed the character, even though the page is not associated to that particular characters. However, I will try to do my best against vandalism of these pages. Congratulations to you too for your effort made against vandalism. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is too much disruption on a page, please ask for a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (short form: WP:RFPP), that would help slowing the disruption. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also to protect of that particular page from here. Thanks for providing me the link!! Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure :) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 15:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekadashi

Hi. I know you thought you were doing a good thing by updating the list on Ekadashi from 2021 to 2022 but that 2021 list shouldn't have been there in the first place. We don't want the complete list in Wikipedia and we also can't have any unreferenced content but, don't worry, there is an alternative. If you know a website with the list of dates on it then you can add that in the External links section. That way people who want the list will be able to get it easily. Also it will save you the bother of typing it all out. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from TrangaBellam

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Just another Wikipedian editor. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I have thought about eliminating these arguments but you have tried to apply me to the arguments. What do you say next?Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]