Jump to content

User talk:222.165.9.81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.225.72.171 (talk) at 00:48, 17 August 2017 (→Please stop selectively removing content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, 222.165.9.81, 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 me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

July 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Inder Kumar has been reverted.
Your edit here to Inder Kumar was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/inder-kumar-passes-away-5-revelations-made-by-the-wanted-actor-about-his-drug-abuse-and-rape-case-in-his-last-interview/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

August 2017

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Village accountant, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Agha (actor) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Agha (actor) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://dustedoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/agha.png) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Information icon Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Love Jihad— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the latest on this topic, high court has already declared the Love Jihad phenomenon real in its verdict and supreme court was sufficiently alarmed to order a wider investigation in all such similarly reported cases. I have provided the latest sources. The synthesis in the lead that I removed is no longer valid. I have created the discussion point on the talk page of the article, please discuss this directly at Talk:Love Jihad#Removing unsourced claims. Thanks.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Love Jihad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove material from the lead that is sourced in the body of the article. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Love Jihad 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. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please check the latest sources provided by me on this topic, high court has already declared the Love Jihad phenomenon real in its verdict and supreme court was sufficiently alarmed to order a wider investigation in all such similarly reported cases. I have provided the latest sources. The synthesis in the lead that I removed is no longer valid, so take back your warning. Investigate properly and exercise caution before just issuing such warning, you should instead discuss on the talk page of the article where I had already mentioned this topic. Shooting warning easily makes wikipedia a nasty unwelcome place to be. Disruptive three-revert warning apply it to you as well, why you keep shooting unwarranted warnings here instead of refusing to discuss on the talk page of article where I had attempted to invite discussion [Talk:Love Jihad#Removing unsourced claims]. Can you stop reverting and issuing warning and "start discussing". Please be careful and use all other more constructive options before using blind warnings after failing to discuss it on the talk page. Take note of 3-revert rule and warning back at you. Please come to the talk page to the article to discuss it and revert your wrong warning here. Do not make wikipedia a hellish experience for others please.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is stuck in 2014, whereas facts have moved on and court-verdict based reality (inserted by me) is much different from the "mere opinions from the 2014" (removed by me, for which you guys are unfairly pouncing on me). Lead and article still need lot more clean up. You are welcome to collaborate constructive with me to improve the article instead of shutting me down by discouraging me by issuing warnings incorrectly. This does not make wikipedia a good "community" to be. Instead encourage me, read the talk page of article, discuss, help me improve the article rather than keeping it frozen in 2014 based on outdated and invalid "opinion". I am looking forward to a more collaborative approach from you. Thanks.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop selectively removing content

You are selectively trying to remove content for whatever reason you can find. Both Reuters and Deccan Chronicle are reliable sources. If you think their reports are wrong then you need to prove it without a doubt, not interpret how you want it. Your edits are becoming disruptive now. As I said earlier, we are not here to decide what's true or false. Please refrain from deciding what's misinterpreted, or not said based on your interpretation which is original research. Thank you. 117.225.12.241 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the content that does not meet the WP:RS of wikipedia. Do not vandalize by repeatedly introducing fabricated misquotes falsely attributed to authorities, [[1]]. This is not permissible under wikipedia guidelines. Removing content that fails the WP:RS is not WP:OR as I am not adding anything, instead I am removing original research/fabricated/misquoted headlines. Regarding, your statement in the revert "We are not scholars or correctioners. Unless you have doubtless proof that the police did not say it, please do not remove it". Please read WP:RS and read the source again properly. You are incorrectly trying to insert the news Headline as the quote from the authorities, this is not a direct quote from the authorities. As per WP:RS, editor must discern the if the source is quoting the authority or merely presenting opinion or if the source is rephrasing authoritative statements in a wrong way. Only the directly supported quotes and facts should be included. "Reliability" of what you inserted is not acceptable even if it came from a reliable publication itself, understand this concept well, please read the guidelines properly. You are welcome to discuss it here or on the talk page of the article itself.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:RS. This is what it says about secondary sources and quotations, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." Deccan Chronicle clearly cited them as statements of the DGP. Your other claim is that police made no such submission to the court. This kind of reasoning is plainly non-understandable and you're making your own interpretation when a thing should be removed. Do you have proof what you claim is incorrect, fabricated? If not, then it is WP:OR on your part. Self-interpretation of what is misinterpreted or fabricated is pure OR. 117.225.42.251 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


An editor made a suggestion that if the content is sourced in the body of the article then it let it stay in the lead. It sounds sensible to me, so no problem in going with to his suggestion. There is a problem if the text in the lead or body itself is misleading with the "blanket statements". For example, "'all official investigations in India launched in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 have found no evidence of the activity" is what I removed and you are trying to retain. A statement can stay if it is sourced in the body, no problem with that principal. There are other problems with the accuracy and reliability of this statement. There is nothing to say all investigations said so, this is not the correct representation of the facts and sources as some investigation found no evidence, other investigation found traces of love jihad it but lacked sufficient evidence and some investigations were still continuing. Hence making a blanket statement that all investigation in those years found no evidence of love jihad is a misrepresentation of the sources. Correct way to rephrase it is "Some investigations in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 either found no evidence or lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations" or something like this. We can discuss what is the right way to rephrase it that reflects the reliable synthesis of the sources. Misrepresenting the sources, as if no cases happened is India, would be dubious. Regarding your statement "We are not scholars or correctioners. Unless you have doubtless proof that the police did not say it, please do not remove it." here, we must remove content that is misrepresented, misquoted, and if it is unreliable content or newsreport even from a otherwise well known source. I think you are confusing the Headline (in bold inside the source your used) as the You are trying to insert the news Headline as the quote from the authorities, this is not a direct quote from the authorities, instead rephrased (and misquoted heading by the source, source has further quoted what the DGP exactly said, so please the direct quote of the DGP instead of reinterpretation of the quote by the source because that reinterpretation is misleading and you are incorrectly attributing it directly to the authority within inverted commas, which is more dubious). WP:RS.

Source [http://in.reuters.com/article/india-religion-modi-idINKBN0GZ2OC20140904 here} says "Police say sporadic cases of trickery by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy. In Uttar Pradesh, police found no evidence of attempted or forced conversion in five of six reported "Love Jihad" cases in the past three months." but you actually quoted as if it was a direct quote from the police, which is not so in the source. It is the source's statement/interpretation of what police says, and source has not mentioned who in the police said so. Neither this statement by police made in court under oath. Source that you are using does not mention that police made any such submission to the court that no love jihad cases. There is a big difference between "statement made to the court under oath or affidavit" (false statements lead to imprisonment) versus statement made outside the court (includes lose talk too). You incorrectly using the Headline used by the source as a quote directly attributed to the the authorities, this is not a direct quote from the authorities. Using the statement made by the source and putting it in the inverted commas as if it was the direct quote by the police is not the right way. It was not a direct quote in the inverted commas in the source, putting it in the inverted commas is a misrepresentation. And, if if it was not a "statement made to the court under oath or affidavit", not even a written press statement from the police, then this statement it of low reliability, specially it is attributed to no verifiable name, since the statement is not verifiable hence does not meet wikipedia criteria also. Giving it undue weight of importance is unacceptable way of editing. Can we please discuss it in one place. Lets discuss it on the article talk page so that others can participate too to build a consensus, otherwise easy to lose track if the discussion is scattered on many talk pages. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already morphed and expanded based on your problems about the investigations. Nothing is untrue. I am not trying to retain all investigations in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014 found no evidence. However yes, if the sources say they found no evismece in their investigation, then we have to mention it as such. I myself added of a High Court Judge's statements about Love Jihad in 2009. So your statements are amounting to false accusations now.
Now Reuters says "Police say sporadic cases of trickery by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy. In Uttar Pradesh, police found no evidence of attempted or forced conversion in five of six reported "Love Jihad" cases in the past three months." However notice the very first line of the quote. The firt sentence is a statement of the police. Who says you cannot put inverted commas? I'm not even presenting it as anything such and it doesn't always means quotes. If you have a problem then remove them. Now about it not being under coat affidavit, how do you say it's of low reliability? This is your pure invention.
The discussion is open on the article's talk page, so anyone can comment there. There is no problem with that. The issue here is your edits and their disruption and OR. Do not remove sourced content with OR. 117.225.72.171 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:222.165.9.81&oldid=795871171"