User talk:Ananya 2012
- 1 Welcome
- 2 Started the discussion for you
- 3 This could be serious...
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for November 21
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for May 30
- 6 June 2014
- 7 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 8 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 9 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 10 Repeatedly engaging in vandalism
- 11 You have been reported for vandalism
- 12 Edit warring at Mariam-uz-Zamani
The talk page.
Started the discussion for you
Hi Ananya, I've seen you've been involved in an edit war with another user and I have started a discussion on the Ruqaiya Sultan Begum talk page for you to take part in. Edit warring never solves anything and I see this has been going for some time now. Though discussions here can get heated, remember to maintain WP:CIVILITY, WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor and don't attack anyone personally. I've seen your post on the user's talk page and since you're new here, remember to assume good faith and not make allegations about someone else's intent. Before taking part in the discussion also read our talk page guidelines. Thanks and if you have any questions feel free to ask them here, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This could be serious...
Hi Ananya, I've looked at the IPs contributions and they are focused on the same topics but there is an occasion where Animefreak undid the edit of the IP address; I'm not sure but is there more evidence of that they could be the same person?
As you know, WP:Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation and when proven after an investigation, leads to an indefnite block of the user. If you think there is really compelling evidence, do read the necessary articles about this and consider opening a Sockpuppet investigation. Honestly, I myself don't have any experience in this area but I can ask someone who has to look into this matter first or you could proceed further yourself. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- If it is possible could you ask someone to look into this matter? I have barely been a month here and didn't even know that this violation is specifically called something. I haven't looked into that IP address's contribution beyond the rather recent. But the edits made by it have an uncanny resemblance to that made by Animefreak234 must amount to something. That IP address adds the same content as added by Animefreak234. You must have noticed that too? Ananya 2012 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Spent quite a bit of time analysing their contributions and I think it's quite unlikely a case of sockpuppetry. The reason you suspect this is because both Animefreak and the IP have worked on the two articles Ruqaiya Sultan Begum and Mariam uz-Zamani; they edited on similar content which you opposed but have quite different editing styles. The IP edited on different areas in the article and on one occasion AF even reverted the anonymous user in this edit.
- I don't see how AF would benefit from sockpuppetry in those situations and the IP did not help AF in anyway except to some extent, in the content removal of Mariam uz-Zamani which I think, doesn't count since what was removed could be disputable to anyone, nothing specific or peculiar there. AF has been editing here for more than a year (longer than me), never did anything controversial and even though not that active, is aware of the basic rules here. I doubt anyone in such a position would resort to this behaviour.
- Hope there isn't any other IP range you suspect or some prominent evidence (please provide the links) which you further need to show me? I hope Animefreak234 (not been active since 1 November) isn't offended by this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- From the link you provided, it seems like they are unrelated. But the IP editor and Animefreak do share a lot of similarities in the content of their edits. These edits edit 1 and edit 2 show so despite being 23 days apart. Also, edit 3 has considerable similarities, as well. The IP editor is trying to ape Animefreak, rather poorly at that. Though they being the same user can't be completely ruled out. I can remove the suspicion part from Talk. No harm done. -Ananya 2012 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariam uz-Zamani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daman (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[Akbar]].<ref>http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi4.htm INDIA The Timurid Dynasty GENEALOGY</ref>) She was the daughter of [[Bharmal|Raja Bharmal]] and Daniyal was sent to her maternal home ([[Amer,
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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Repeatedly engaging in vandalism
Despite my repeated requests I see that you are intentionally and persistently engaging in vandalism and edit warring on the pages Ruqaiya Sultan Begum and Mariam-uz-Zamani. I have again reversed your malicious edits on both the pages. You are repeatedly reversing these pages to versions which are years old and are poorly sourced and written and filled with wrong info, gibberish and fan bias. Those versions are laughable. You are also removing perfectly sourced content in the process. These are not constructive edits and you are just doing it because you seem to like those particular page versions. This is your last warning, if you continue to engage in vandalism and violate Wikipedia policies then you will be reported and blocked from editing any further - Almeda64, 07:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You have been reported for vandalism
Despite my final warning you again vandalized the articles Ruqaiya Sultan Begum and Mariam-uz-Zamani. I have reported you as a vandal. If you still continue to vandalize these articles then you will bear the consequences - Almeda64, 07:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring at Mariam-uz-Zamani
Your recent editing history at Mariam-uz-Zamani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dl2000 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Dl2000, the most recent versions of the pages Mariam-uz-Zamani and Ruqaiya Sultan Begum lacked content which has been cited from legit sources. Instead snippets from fictitious historical novels were being paraded as facts. Thus, I had to participate in the editing. I know it must be tough for you to through every single little edit war going on the wikipedia and resolve issues but please look into the quality of pages, as well. If possible, it would be best if an expert on this topic could take some time off and look into the matter. Bringing up the rules alone while not really assessing the quality of articles is not something Wikipedia promotes, i suppose. Thank you. Ananya 2012 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
User Ananya 2012 it appears that you are not aware what "quality" of articles on Wikipedia means otherwise you would not continue to keep reverting both these pages to versions which are years old and are poorly sourced and written and filled with wrong information, vandalism, gibberish and fan bias containing terms such as "Mariam-uz-Zamani was the longest serving Hindu empress and ancestor of every Mughal through Jahangir" and such rubbish. You are also not aware of the rules and regulations on Wikipedia and it's policies because you have repeatedly ignored my messages and refused to participate in a discussion and do not give any reason or explanation for your edits on both these pages. Instead you prefer to engage in edit warring and have forced me to do that as well. Your edits are malicious and biased and you are repeatedly removing sourced content for no reason. "Instead snippets from fictitious historical novels were being paraded as facts" - both these pages do not contain any information from fictional novels, I have checked them myself. They are perfectly sourced and even contain direct quotes from perfectly reliable sources such as the Jahangirnama. If you still think they do contain any fictional info, then please point them out on the relevant talk page instead of reversing the whole page to an old vandalized version which in fact does contain fictional information. Your edits are not constructive nor are they any improvement. If you are not an expert by any means on this subject then why are you mindlessly reverting these pages? It does not take an expert to know that what you're doing is plain and simple vandalism and fan bias - Almeda64, 06:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Prove it. Please prove my edits are wrong if you think they are 'malicious fan bias'. We can delete the latter half of the said line. I am well read and informed individual on this topic. I just asked for an expert so he/she can resolve this dispute fairly. I have been in a similar situation years back and it finally ruled in my favour after outside intervention. Therefore, i want a third intervention in this preferably by someone who knows something about the topic. And please Mind your Language. It is for competent authorities to decide whether I am a vandal or not. Not you. Ananya 2012 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are a vandal and have already been proved so I don't need to "mind" my language maybe you ought to think twice before intentionally and persistently engaging in vandalism and edit warring. In case you are not aware of the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia then please check it here. You fit the bill perfectly. I do not need to prove anything I have already explained everything before numerous times. The old versions of those articles are poorly sourced and written and are filled with wrong info, gibberish, vandalism and fan bias. Your claim that the present versions of those articles are filled with poorly sourced information has already been proven wrong. There is absolutely no need for a third party intervention. You have been proven wrong and you are just denying the fact that you're engaging in vandalism and fan bias. If you were the least bit informed about anything then you wouldn't be repeatedly and persistently engaging in vandalism and edit warring. I do not have the time to quote each and every line of the old vandalized versions of those articles. What happened with you years ago is none of my concern nor is it anyone else's. We are dealing with a different issue now. I am well informed about this topic unlike you and have carefully compared the two versions of those articles and have arrived at this conclusion. You are wasting everyone's valuable time with your challenges of "prove that I'm wrong". Your edits are malicious and fan bias and hence you don't explain anything or give any reasons for them. You are repeatedly removing sourced content for no reason. Please stop reverting these pages now or else you will be blocked from editing any further and rightfully so - Almeda64, 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The number one reason why your edits are wrong, malicious and fan bias is because you are repeatedly removing perfectly sourced content for no reason. The content on the current version of those pages meets WP:V and WP:RS. According to WP:REMOVAL, unexplained removal of sourced content is instantly reverted so I have the complete right to revert your edits. This is plain and simple vandalism. You also do not give any edit summary for your edits. You are repeatedly violating rules of Wikipedia. Please read the rules and regulations of Wikipedia before blindly reverting pages, you are breaking each and every one of them. What more proof do you want that your edits are wrong? Why are you repeatedly removing perfectly sourced content for no apparent reason? - Almeda64, 18:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- User Ananya 2012 you are a clear case of a vandal and you have again removed sourced content for no reason. Do not talk about my opinions on your edits, you are clearly violating Wikipedia policies how many times do I need to repeat that? I will not act as a tutor for you and repeatedly explain to you all the rules, regulations and policies. Read them for yourself that will explain why your edits are wrong. I have already proved that they are. I have mentioned the rules you are violating and I will continue to revert your edits as per WP:REMOVAL. I have already reported you. You are still not giving any reason for removing sourced content and are continuing to violate all the rules and policies. Stop engaging in edit warring and stop reverting these pages now. A discussion won't bear fruit because your edits are senseless and malicious. There is no logic behind them, you do not give any edit summary and continue to violate rules and policies. I have also noticed that the old version of the Mariam-uz-Zamani page you keep reverting to over-glorifies the historical figure in question with lots of fan bias while the Ruqaiya Sultan Begum page you keep reverting to diminishes the historical figure's importance. I think I can see the pattern here. This is a clear case of vandalism and fan bias - Almeda64 (talk), 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
After taking a few days off to let things settle a bit, and to try to look at the article. Please continue any further discussion of this at the article's talk page Talk:Mariam-uz-Zamani#Recent edit dispute. Agree that this needs some "third-party" editors to help sort out the contentious items here, have made a request for this at WT:IN. It probably doesn't help to attempt a discussion on all disputed claims, but an item-by-item discussion may help resolve this. If the dispute remains in play, there are boards such as third opinion (3O) or WP:RFC that could help. Dl2000 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Dl2000 I am familiar with the history of this topic and have already proved wrong Ananya 2012's claim that the present version of the Mariam-uz-Zamani article contains information from historical novels. If it does in fact contain any fictional information then Ananya 2012 should point them out on the Mariam-uz-Zamani talk page, which the user refuses to do. Instead Ananya 2012 prefers to repeatedly revert the whole page to a 3-4 year old version which is poorly sourced and written and filled with vandalism, wrong and fictional information, gibberish and fan bias containing ridiculous statements like "Mariam-uz-Zamani was the longest serving Hindu empress and ancestor of every Mughal through Jahangir and that she shared an unusually close relationship with Akbar and was his first love and last love". The old version of the article also over-glorifies Mariam-uz-Zamani with lots of fictional information which is not present in the sources cited, I cannot quote each and every line here. I have consulted Wikipedia administrator Utcursch who states that it is not acceptable to revert pages to versions which are years old unless there is a consensus to do so. So Ananya 2012 please point out your complaints on the relevant talk page and stop reverting this page - Almeda64 (talk), 09:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)