User talk:Ananiujitha

Welcome!

Hello, Ananiujitha, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananiujitha, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ananiujitha! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Late Roman army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palatini

Limitanei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deutz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Ananiujitha.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy wars

Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, but something did spring to mind... Dolescum (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, I'm not sure how this metaphor is supposed to apply to the case. or to anything. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders were religious fanatics with a purported divine mission, no? Dolescum (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure how this metaphor is supposed to apply to the case. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Well, assuming my interpretation is correct, which it may not be ( hence my coyness ), the implication is that those referred to are themselves are fanatics, with a divine mission that overrides all other concerns, yes? Dolescum (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treating people with respect? Ananiujitha (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading it as a particularly sarcastic consensus reference. Dolescum (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there was no consensus, there were slightly more on one side, amid a hostile environment that drove away people from the other side. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drove away people from both sides. There was just as much bad behaviors from the other side.--v/r - T P 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

There was a discussion about a year ago about this Wikiproject's role on Wikipedia. Some outsiders felt that the Wikiproject was trying to bias Wikipedia toward a Conservative viewpoint. Some insiders felt that they were trying to balance the project, which they felt already had a Liberal viewpoint, back to a neutral stance. To clarify what the discussion was about, I developed this graphic to see if I could make sense of what was being discussed. Anyway, it sprung to memory when you said Activism may be needed to counteract bias. You'll see on my talk page that I take a very Libertarian perspective on rights. I'm pro-LGBT while being anti-Activism. Activists are the crux of anarchy and completely anti-civilized discussion. I've never met an activist who could hold an honest discussion and share thoughts back and forth. Activism is a mono-directional communication style.

That said, I think what you'll find on Wikipedia is that it is both slanted toward a Conservative bias and a Liberal bias at the same time. Some may even call that neutrality. I don't, personally. I think the removal of both biases is what we need. We need to express both points of view in their voice, and not in Wikipedia voice. But I digress. The point is, that you'll find the different biases based on the time of day, the article you're on, and it's importance to a particular viewpoint. You'll find that more recentism tends to lean Liberal while historical articles lean Conservative. We don't need more people willing to come here and champion their POV. What we need are more editors willing to Wikipedia:Write for the enemy.--v/r - T P 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Roman army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deurne (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Might I suggest you work on your evidence in your sandbox, and get a few people whose views you respect to give it a once over? Might save you some time, then you can post it. Regards.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Roman army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thematic (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move review

Here read this: WP:Move review it will help to answer some of your questions =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Barsymes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodotus (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

primary-source

Greetings, Ananiujitha! You recently placed the { {primary-source} } tag in Battle of Elasa which says "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." I'm not sure what this means. I suppose you are speaking of the citations to "Oremus Bible Browser". What needs to be done to provide "more precise citations"? As you can see, these are links to biblical texts using the { {Bibleverse} } template. Should I have placed the templates directly in-line instead of embedding them with < ref >...< /ref > tags? See this example, User:Atefrat/sandbox2 of the first two paragraphs of the article with the { {Bibleverse} } templates directly following the relevant text. I've seen this method used in other articles which cite Bible text directly. ~~Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

It's not that these aren't properly cited, it's that it's also important to include relatively recent works by specialists in the field. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize, Ananiujitha. The previous statement (This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear...) did not originate from your { {primary-source} } tag, but rather from the { {more footnotes} } tag which was placed in May 2011. That tag has long been satisfied so I am removing it. Now, let's start over, please!

You place two tags: { {single-source} } & { {primary source} }. I do not believe that either of these tags apply. The problem is, as I see it, that the sources are in the See Also section instead of being in-line refs. Sources include: Flavius Josephus, Babylonian Talmud, Bezalel Bar-Kochva (1976), and Gabriel & Metz (1992) - four sources, not a single source. Furthermore, these are all from a time long after the battle and are secondary or tertiary sources, not primary sources.

Therefore, I have moved several of the See Also sources creating inline refs where they rightly belong. In the case of the Talmud, I will contact someone to find the precise chapter and verse which refers to the Maccabean revolts and create an inline ref if possible. As for Gabriel & Metz, this is undoubtedly background information which must remain in the See Also section. So - now that there are multiple in-line refs from secondary sources, I am removing the single and primary tags. As for the { {cn} } tag, I do not know who made the statement which rightly warrants such a tag. I will leave that to whomever made the statement for clarification. I hope this satisfies your concerns.

As for your statement, '...relatively recent works by specialists in the field.', that would require a completely different tag. I leave it to you to figure that out. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Edit warring at Autism~~
I realize that you probably believe you are improving the article, but you should take note that your changes are being reverted by other editors as unhelpful or incorrect. The current change you are trying to make and are now edit warring over is not even grammatically correct. Autism is a Featured Article, and we need to maintain the highest standard of prose and sourcing. If you do not stop edit warring there, I will report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and you may be blocked from editing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a passage with no coherent meaning, asked on the talk page, checked the sources, and rewrote it so it had a clear meaning. You reverted claiming mine was ungrammatical, when it was perfectly grammatical, and unlike the other, had a clear meaning. And you accuse me of edit warring? Ananiujitha (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion~~
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ananiujitha reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Autism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
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.

~~The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Ananiujitha reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Ananiujitha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the hell? I am supposed to understand and acknowledge the reason for this block, but I don't understand it. Someone who repeatedly reverted my good-faith edits, including compromise edits, repeatedly insulted me, and repeatedly baited me, accused me of edit warring, without offering any solutions. Why are you encouraging their bullying and blocking their targets?

Decline reason:

Well, let's just explain this in more depth: You kept insisting on an edit that screwed up the grammar of a perfectly good sentence. Now, maybe you didn't understand this. You were asked to stop reverting and discuss this. You went ahead anyway, accusing the other editor of "trash[ing my perfectly good work]". When people "accuse" (most of us would call it "warn") you of edit warring, it is not their responsibility to "offer solutions." It is your responsibility to stop and seek either page protection or discuss it on the talk page. As reviewed at ANEW, you had continued despite these warnings. Therefore, you were blocked. Your obtuseness to this does not bode well for your future here, and needless to say it won't get you unblocked anytime soon. Mend your ways. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That is not even true!

"It is your responsibility to stop and seek either page protection or discuss it on the talk page." I had already done this before the accusations, and continued to do this and seek third-party advice despite the accusations.

"you had continued despite these warnings." I did not and do not understand what these "warnings" were about, although, as soon as LaserBrain had explained their objections, I stopped inserting my corrected sentence. I don't remember if I may have inserted the huh tag one more time.

"You kept insisting on an edit that screwed up the grammar of a perfectly good sentence." It was incoherent. It was and is meaningless as written.

You explanation for the block does not fit the facts. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]