User talk:Okenkhwairakpam

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Okenkhwairakpam, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

September 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Women in Meitei culture, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Areas covered under a constituency[edit]

Could you add that info to a new section called "Extent" please? Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: you can add the constituency number to the infobox (constituency_no param). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks bro. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okenkhwairakpam, you have been notified of the contentious topics policies, and the 2023 Manipur violence is explicitly tagged as a contentious topic. Reinstating disputed content without discussion or even an edit summary, counts as WP:disruptive editing. Please self-revert and open a discussion on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the content is well cited from various sources, it is constructive view. WP:DDE, WP:NPOV, WP:VOICE compared to the previous version. Slight changes are also made in some sentences so that you may understand the content better. Honestly, it was thought that you showed some signs of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, but I assumed good faith and went ahead with WP:EDITCON. Still, if you have any misunderstanding, or if anything is missed please feel free to talk up; welcomed for talk. Let's improve the article through consensus including WP:EDITCON. Thanks. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever may be the reason, in a contentious topic, you need to strictly follow WP:BRD. Reverting an edit without even an edit summary is a big no-no. Neither do you show any indication that you saw and understood the reasons for which I reverted your edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect dear@Kautilya3,

Please refer WP:BRD-NOT.
BRD is not mandated by Wiki policies.
For the edit summary that you are not happy about, other edits happened in the reverted portion with summaries.
WP:EDITCON empowers any authorised responsible editor to contribute well cited content.
You may not delete (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) constructive contribution with well cited sources.

I undid your revert on my constructive well cited content, then it (in the same undid portion) was refined (with edit summary) to help you understand with clarity.

Any other further grievances, you may bring up. Welcomed. Thanks. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why your edit was reverted? If so, can you state it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect Dear Sir@Kautilya3,

See, I am not here to lecture on how to edit in Wikipedia, and I don't own the article (WP:OOP). I hope you too are not. We are here to respect each and every contributors, also view Wikipedia's collaborative editing policies (WP:TEAMWORK).

First, I hope your discontentment with regard to "edit summary" etc. is mutually understood (view last reply). So, WP:BRD is good, and we also have to understand what it is not WP:BRD-NOT. It is not mandated by Wikipedia Policies, but we may almost always follow them as responsible contributors and in view of editing etiquettes.

Let's not do anything in the line of WP:OOPS (Wiki's humor).

As for your misgivings towards me as to the understandability of your revert in a well sourced, constructive content in the lead section (MOS:LEAD/WP:LEAD), seemingly in your view as a fixation:-

Please re-examine carefully:

Before my edit (which you reverted, again to which I undid and refined), the last para (5th para?) of the lead section stood as a narrative of one side (say Kuki community).
With my edit, narrative of the other side (say Meitei community) was also presented. Neutrality was maintained (5th para?). What you did in a couple of edits:
Reverted the whole portion (both narratives). We can say, neutrality was maintained (by diluting both narratives). But the lead section might have wanted richness of the whole article view (just my opinion, view may differ). Then,
You added, although with some refinement, the one sided narrative again making it back to square one (or say point no.1).

This editing behaviour of yours somewhat points to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:OOP, and fixation (honestly, it just occurred to me once as a question mark? Please don't mind). I won't allege you in view of Edit Consensus WP:EDITCON, wiki's policies on ownership of article (WP:OOP), and assuming good faith (WP:AGF), Wiki's collaborative editing policy (WP:TEAMWORK).

What I did:

Undid the revision (missed the edit summary).
Refined the content in 4th paragraph which previously was in short of other statements (edit summaries presented). So, 4th para in the lead, which you might also agree, is a well composed paragraph. We can do some refinement, as nothing is perfect.

Lead as of now:

It presents both narratives, somewhat neutral. It is richer. The last para has scope for improvement, and slight expansion.

I am thinking of slightly expanding the last (5th para) in the lead section as it is too short for the narrative of one side(Kuki community), as there are only two sources cited. I don't know if you are of the same view as me.

Lead section should also be not too long. Let me see if we can shorten the 4th para and slightly present the 5th para fuller, carefully maintaining neutrality and MOS:LEAD.

Going forward:

Is there any other clarifications that you think you owe me? I would love to clarify any misgivings in one reply so that it saves your and my time. But it's not that I am imposing as to how you must question me - bit by bit or in one go; we can always carry on with our discussion indefinitely. Please feel free to discuss in any ways you like -definitely or indefinitely, although I prefer the first one :-).

I'll be happy to oblige based on Editor Integrity (WP:EDITINT). Appreciate your contributions; my admirations to you. It is also hoped that you will let community contribute (WP:OOP). Happy editing. Thanks again for your time. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you were to write an edit summary for your revert, what would it be? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respected @Kautilya3 Sir,

Edit summary would have been something like:

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary." (sounds like I am opening a school of Wikipedia and teaching you; would have hated to write like this.)

or

"The revert is not an improvement, could also be refined. Not very necessary revert." (sounds short, and you might have wanted more explanations, How, Why? etc.)

or

"Not improved on revert. Refinement is better. Unnecessary revert." (sounds short and crisp, may be interpreted as too dominant).

It depends. But I hope it would have been in this sense.

Then I would have put some relevant WP:VOKATIRENDUMUDU, WP:BO(J)NCHASTARA (just on a humour side).

Thanks a lot for your time, your carefulness in handling contentious topic like this, and most importantly your kindness to other editors/contributors in giving chance to explain their contributions.

Please feel free to clarify if you have any other misunderstanding about my editing. By the way, may I refine the content in question? I am afraid to do so as you seem not have liked it. Please do let me know. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is an appropriate edit summary as per WP:Edit summary, especially WP:REVTALK. Please try again.

Keep in mind also that Wikipedia is built by WP:CONSENSUS. Since you choose not to follow WP:BRD, which is the normal process of seeking consensus, at least a minimum effort must be made in the edit summary to explain the rationale for your revert. So, please try again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir@Kautilya3,

After such a long replying to all the misgivings that you have, am I obliged to try again sir, and try what?

Do let me know on what matter that you are not contented precisely, point-wise so that I understand what do you want me to try again or write. I'll surely do all that you want provided it is point-wise, and genuine. In other words, I am empowering you with the authority to give me a blank form which I can fill.

Do let me know if you have been availed such an opportunity, or respected by any experienced editor (even the fear of editing content you disputed, as in my previous reply)?

Please provide me a form (just here in the talk, point-wise and I'll fill it and send).

You can always do another form after that form as I said (in my previous reply) you are free to discuss indefinitely and your behaviour shows not indication of wanting a definite discussion.

Let me know what you want me to do? I'll see if it is genuine and will oblige if reasonable.

Important Note - you are given the opportunity of two more replies to make your point, issues, and discontentment clear for me to reply and liquidate once and for all. Please make you reply as long as you want, but not line by line (separately in several replies) and no like - "did you...?", "if i were...?" , "but then, ...", "however, ..." (on a humorous note, but may be adhered if sensible and genuine). But as I always say, it doesn't mean that I am imposing on you on how to question me - definitely or indefinitely, although I prefer...aha (you know now).

Please feel free, come out of the books, manuals, look what's common sense, understand what Wikipedia is talking about common sense, to make your points and questions clear so that it is understood and easy to answer.

Serious Talk Follows:

Is WP:Edit summary a Wiki policy or a norm & practice?

If any of the two, what is that you want to advise me (give point-wise)?

Please write me head-wise and point-wise for better understandability.

Was my explanations in my precious replies understandable?

If not, where?

If yes, then what is more that you want me to explain?

Please write me head-wise and point-wise for better understandability.

Will reply to all your questions indefinitely.

My admiration to your dedication (need to learn a lot from you; will ask some day what drives that dedication) to Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time and effort. Always welcomed for any questions. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which says, among others, When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. So, please state precisely in something like 20-50 words your policy-based reasons for reverting. (I am not interested in chit chat.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Hi Okenkhwairakpam! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2023 Manipur violence several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2023 Manipur violence, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding the effort an editor goes through while editing, writing each and every letters, words, and statements in any topic; referencing then cross-checking. As far as this page is concerned, it is a contentious topic; it needs to be done in a more stringent ways; sticking to core policies, most importantly a total NPOV; and sometimes bold. You are doing great as a major contributor, also accommodating views of other contributors. Appreciate your time and effort. By the way I am on a Wikibreak. My contributions in the topic is good enough for one contributor in my opinion. Hopefully, those are respected, and no activity in the line of editwar is initiated from responsible contributor editor(s). Thanks again Kautilya3. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Hi, this is regarding a closed RfC on the 2023 Manipur violence. As an uninvolved editor, can you make the necessary edit, i.e. option C? The full citations are given in the footnotes. Sorry it's because I don't have extended-confirmed access. Tms369 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, done. Do let me know if it needs to be improved. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Tms369 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the citations are wrong.

These are the references:

1,2,3 for the first two sentences. 2,3,4 for the last. Tms369 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user "Kautilya3" seems to be strongly guarding (obsessed might be strong word) the other side of the story disputed by you which was discussed (closed) moderated by a user "Robert McClean", followed by an RFC. He/she reverted my edit, so edited again keeping both sides of the story (with improved citations) for more neutral point of view, and a richer experience on reading the Wiki topic in discussion. Please see, and do let me know if required for more improvement. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is he even allowed to do that given the moderator judged there was a consensus against his favoured edit? Do you think I should take this to the administrator's noticeboard? Tms369 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can understand, user "Kautilya3" gave a closure (outside the closed discussion) requesting you to give some references (page by page etc.). I can still "revert/undo" his "revert", but that is not considered a good practice (somewhat in the line of WP:EDITWAR). As a good practice, it is alright to keep the other side of the narrative while inserting another side of the narrative (in view of WP:NPOV); and I have done that.

It's okay to take to the administrator's noticeboard with sufficient grounds. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had given him, Chaipau and the moderator all the quotes, page by page during our lengthy discussion at DRN. With his statement "The content suggests that the chiefs or "Khullakpas" were gone after 1891", I believe he has now resorted to putting words in people's mouths.

I have now given him the page numbers he requested. I suppose inserting their side of the narrative is line with Wikipedia:NPOV, so I'll agree to it.

But could it be possible to change the order of the statement to:

{{tqb| The hill tribes, whose administration had largely been left to the respective chiefs known as Khullakpa by the Meitei Kings, came to be administered by the British after the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891. The British administrative control became more intensive after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-19 and they continued to administer the hill areas directly until 1947. Scholars believe the colonial administration employed the "divide and rule" policy which widened existing divide between the peoples. On the contrary, the hill regions are noted by some scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples which came to be administered only after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917–1919, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.}} Tms369 (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have read the discussion carefully. Will do in the weekend. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do an extended-user edit request in the page talk page itself mentioning the closed discussion, moderator and RFC etc.? Please mention that my edit is not satisfactory (I don't mind, as you have done a lot of research and put up a dispute and positive arguments to win the consensus) in accordance with the consensus, and the order of the content should be such that the consensus first, then the old version to be eliminated (or if kept, in view of WP:NPOV, should be in the next order). It makes the edit known to all and well grounded. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made the edit you requested. Have done my best to remain neutral. Please see if it is acceptable on your side. Also see talk page explaining the edit. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bimol Akoijam, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the opportunity. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]