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 222.165.9.81 (talk) at 06:12, 30 September 2017 (→September 2017). 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.
Accusations? I am not accusing "you" as an individual of anything. but I am questioning quality of some of your edits, such as reliability, verifiability, misattribution. Does not necessarily mean you are deliberately doing it with bad faith. I do not doubt that you are as passionate or sincere as I am. Do not get dishearted and do not take it personally. Separate the "issue" from the "person". We are having "issue based" disagreement which we are trying to resolve. It is not a personal feud. There might be issue-based edits that we agree. We do not know each other, so there is nothing malicious, except the intent to improve the article with facts. I do not want anyone to run me off wiki and I do not wnat you to get tuned off and get off wikipedia either. No worries, we can do it right we, by discussing, just keep an open mind and do not take to heart. "Issue based" is the key word. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please read the Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your edits, that you are trying to retain, do not pass this test. Removing he content that should not be on wikipedia, because it fails to meet the quality criteria, is not called the "original research".222.165.9.81 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read Due and undue weight. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
There is no OR, you are terming my attempts at removing factual inaccuracies (blanket statements, falsely attributed quotes or quotes of low reliability and verifiability) as OR. This is not the right way. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been constantly creating factual inaccuracies and making edits based on OR. Are you reporting it? We rely on sources and you have not only provided no proof, but are openly indulging in OR witg low reliability and baselessly accusing others of false quotes. As for generalisations, I have already eliminated them. You are disregarding what the rules are about and falsely accusing others. Thid is what is not the right way. As I have already said follow the rules. 117.224.111.227 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How am I creating factual inaccuracies, you have not demonstrated that at all. Do not tarnish something by calling it OR if your edits gey removed or rephrased because those do not meet the wikipedia criteria of a good lead, good synthesis, verifiable and reliable sources. I am not accusing anyone that they are "deliberately" inserting false quotes. I am stating that based on evaluation of the edits, those quotes are "falsely attributed" because those are not the direct quote. Show me point-by-point which rule I have discarded and then it is easier to resolve those. I do not intend to reject or attack individuals. I intend to evaluate (per wikipedia guidelines) and accept or reject on "case-by-case issue-based specific-edits". Please separate the "personal/self" from your "edits". Critique of your edits is not a criticism of you. If an edit is done in a way that appears false attribution then it is evaluation of the edit, not of you, not calling you false, not accusing you of doing it deliberately, once you understand the rules better you will understand it. Also, read and respond to all of my comments embedded below each one of your reply above. I have replied to each one of your comment above one by one. And, lets discuss thee on the article talk page because I want consensus of all other users, and not just among two of us. if we discuss on the talk page of the article itself then the other editors there might even be able to help us resolve it by their suggestions, edits, rephrasing, etc. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What else are you doing? Creating factual accuracies? You should first not i dulge i bad faith accusations, should not tarnish others by saying they are generalizing. You should also not accuse sources of accusations purely of your own or accusing others of "tarnishing" you when you are indulging in exactly what. It is you who has been dismisseing the edits as misattribution, not said etc. Isn' t it yiu who says so without proof? Personal opinion can be given by all users, but OR is not allowed. The talk page is open so anyone can give their views. I have rephrased all te summaries to address that they are accurately as in source. But drawn up definitions and accusations against sources cannot be given accommodation, nor your violation of rules. If have any problems, please mention them. But if they are bad faith accusations and OR, then you are misbehaving. As for answering point-by-point I shall answer it at article's talk page 117.199.88.74 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page and discuss there point by point, and stop making edits from all accounts until consensus is reach on the talk page of the article. Please stop discussing here also. I repeat, I have no intention to state you or others are deliberately making any trouble, so lets drop it as no point if all play victims (which everyone can do but does not solve the problem). No need to harp and needlessly accuse each other of bad faith. I already told you, I will critique your work, not you as individual. Learn to discern please. Tame the emotions, defuse, defuse and defuse, we reboot. I had stopped making edits and instead I created issues on the article talk page but you kept going and keep reverting me and kept making changes despite being warned by other sot not do so and you did not make attempt to resolve it with me on the article talk page uni=til forced to do so. If you feel hurt, I apologize just to give you peace of heart, as I do not want you to feel hurt, so that we can get back to objectively focus on the issues and leave out everything else, provided you stop harping. I too can play the same victim and blame game and it is counter productive. I will stop it here. I will only discuss issue by issue on the article talk page. I request and repeat, reboot, drop all negativity and baggage, start fresh and let us please objectively focus on the resolution. and, do so only in one place, that right place is the talk page of the article, not here. Any one can leave messages on each others talk page but stalking is not permissible under wikipedia gudielines. There are proper places to discuss things. Personal messages/issues on personal talk page, article related issues on the article talk page only. We can not keep pushing article related issues on the personal talk pages despite being told many times to stop doing it on my talk page. The correct place to build consensus on the issues related to an article is article talk page. Even if you and me agree here, there might be future objections and reverts by others, that is why better to reply on the talk page of the article. Stop the article related discussion here and just discuss issue-by-issue and each issue point-by-point on the article page itself. I am open to suggestions. You and others mentioned lead needs no references, this commonsense makes sense to me but I found wikipedia guidelines that clearly state that if an edit has been challenged (which I did) then it should be referenced in the lead also. About the use of "allowable" instead of ordered, I did more research after you countered, I agree with you that NIA had asked for the permission to investigate other cases and court passed the "order" to "allowed" (court did not order on its own without being asked for the permission), so proceed with the use of the term "allowed". About the things you are attributing to DGP as direct quotes, please read the article talk page, check and understand all the points including the subheading, and then respond there. I will try to rebuild my relationship with you with open mind but it will work only if we reboot and start fresh with open heart. I am taking the initiative, apologizing to you to give you peace was part of that effort (it does not make any of us wrong, it simply means I value resolution more over needlessly turning things into personal issues), join me in that constructive approach please. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also just so you notice, this source which you say about insert this source at the end of your Please Help: Point-by-point resolution of pending issue in Half-truth in the lead which you say should be used to say He also reprimanded the DGP Jacob Punnoose for making vague statements is from October 2009. What it talks about the DGP's earlier October 22 report.

Justice K.T. Sankaran observed that some answers furnished in the DGP’s report were ‘vague’ and it appeared that the statements in different paragraphs did not ‘reconcile’ with each other.

The DGP, in a statement on October 22, had told the Court that there were reasons to suspect attempts to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love with Muslim boys, but that no organisation called ‘Love Jihad’ had been identified so far in Kerala.

It's much earlier before from when DGP Jacob Punnoose made his statements on November 11 and long before KT sanakaran's observations in December 2009 , directly says he has been directed to deliver his report by November 11: "The court directed the DGP to produce the reports on the basis of which he had prepared the report, in a sealed cover, by November 11." Please do check the sources before suggesting changes.59.96.134.21 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay dear thanks for the clarity. Please suggest your solution/rephrasing according to these points you mentioned and include/address my points too. Under the issues created by me on the article talk page please, make your "specific actionable" proposal (proposed phrasing for both {a} lead and {b) main body of the article) so others can provide their feedback. If the issue does not exist there, please proceed to list it there. Remember, lead is only for the summary, details should be added on the main body and lead should have summary only (not recreate details in the lead). Let us please discuss article related issues on the article talk page, not here. Even if you and me agree, there might be others who might object to our join edits in future. To build resolution on this, please discuss this only and only on the talk page of the article. That way our consensus would be more future-proof if it is on the article talk page so future editors can see the rationale. Besides, same discussion on too many places will be easy to lose the track. Thanks again for making the effort to clarity and to add value. Please review all other issues I raised and provide your feedback. If you agree say so. If you disagree, suggest alternative rephrasing with your rationale so we can progress further. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better if I stop talking here about the article. I could talk, but this is not the proper place because others are more likely to view suggestions and discussions on the article's talk page. Come. Let's stalk about the article there only. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. let us do it nicely and sweetly. I will also try to be more sensitive. I realized some of the words I did not intend to hurt you have hurt you. I will refrain from using those.
Please refrain from saying I am trying to OR, I have attempted to synthesis and not cook up things. One of disconnect is about how edits are inserted, you are inserting everything verbatim, where as I have read in some guidelines that synthesis of sources is good practice, when I attempted the synthesis (it might be imperfect that needed improvement), you thought it is OR (which I had not intended to do). We both need to brush up on our understanding of those rules, feel free to send me links here on those guidelines you come across and I will share with you too. If synthesis is allowed and if you felt they do not stand up the scrutiny, feel free to suggest improvement, no need to call them OR or imply I am intending to OR.
Let us both use lot more goodfaith really and in action. I did not start warning or other editors. I have only responded to it. You guys stopped warning after i resisted, so I have stopped countering also. Please assume anything I critique about your edits, is not an attack on you or your intentions. I did respond on the article talk page. It has progressed towards resolution. let us continue with that.
Another one of disconnect also stems from the fact that we were working off the current sources in the article and those have not presented the complete facts accurately, we might need to get additional sources and text to make the picture complete. In first iteration it might get lengthy, but we can take turns to improve each others edits to condense the article.
I read somewhere about the concept of Wikipedia:Good article criteria, our article is not there at all.
I think we also need help from the experienced third party reviewer/rewriter to clean up the article to make it more crisp like Taj Mahal article that covers everything. Do you know of any forum where we can list it for such review (review and rewrite the whole article, or at last suggest holes we need to plug)?
Before listing there for 3rd party improvement, let us resolve and close all issues.
Another issue I want to address is editors who might have conflict of interest e.g. (a) champions of Hindu cause trying to provide undue weight to the false allegation cases, (b) champions of muslim cause might try to resist any edits that might even prevent the objective edits about the forced conversions or existence of any love jihad cases, and (c) wishy washy edits by liberals and secular NGOs who good-heartedly want to preserve communal harmony at the expense of objective facts. My aim is to have an article based on the objective facts, while resisting negative edits and editing pressure and warring from those 3 groups. Only the dispassionate objective cold facts.
There are few common good things about both of us are: both passionate, keen to edit, tenacious, not quitting, have showed willingness to learn fast, have progressed on from tussle mode to collaborate, so let us continue to leverage our good synergies to benefit from each others edits. Come, I hug you, to give you more peace and love. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Love Jihad. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please [User_talk:222.165.9.81#Please_stop_selectively_removing_content|Discuss}|see my discussion above on my talk page]. I am directly taking it point-by-point and I have already invited others for discussion on the talk page of the Love Jihad and my this is what I created there [Talk:Love_Jihad#Issues_with_the_article:_Do_not_bite_me.2C_collaborate_instead|multiple issues with article] and [Talk:Love_Jihad#Removing_unsourced_claims|unsorced claims]. I am doign everything to avoid edit wars and to build consensus. This is not a fair allegation or warning. Since the other editor started to revert, i crated discussion points on the article talk page, and subsequent to that I stopped making changes to his edits and am encouraging him to engaging in discussion as you can see above. Please investigate all the facts in holistic manner before deciding. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to justify such a thing is not a right start, administratiors especially many a times won't consider any justifications. I've seen your edits, that's why I warned both of you. While you say you try to achieve a consensus, you kept on imposing your own edits and what's right like the other one. No edit war, no imposing your own edits, no disruptive editing. Also see WP:3RR, even partial reverts can be considered, and it clearly prohibits any justification for it. Even if you don't exceed 3 revert limit you can still be blocked. If you have any porblem discuss it first. Discuss any contentious edits and suggestions first instead of going at it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rohingya people

Hi. Please note that WP:AGF is a core guideline of Wikipedia and statements such as the ones you make here are unacceptable and, if made again, can lead to blocks. Stick to content that is supported by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did practice WP:AGF but you did not, you also failed to fact check, you failed in applying due diligence and you misused admin rights by rushing to warn me unfairly.
First, I have not targeted any specific editor. In response to another user's comment I had made a generic omment about wikipedia having builtin mechanism (being watched by fellow editors) to block out the "conflict of interest" editors promoting/supporting terrorist propaganda. In my comments there is no attack on any "specific individual" editor, I only made general statement. This is absurd.
Second, I have made no edits on that Rohingya people wikipedia article for which you are issuing me warning, I only made suggestions and comments on the talk page of that article. How can I be making "disruptive edits" when I made zero edits? This makes no sense. Do not rush to warn.
Third, this is obvious, someone is trying to run me out for raising inconvenient facts on that talk page, that editor whoever is making malicious and motivated complaints against me should be warned for gaming the system. Revoke this warning against me.
Fourth, to remove POV from the article, I made suggestions for improvements on talk page of that article with several sources to back my suggestions, some of which was incorporated into the article by other editors (I am at arms' length from edits). My suggestions were obviously not liked by those COI and biased editors (I do not know who they are, they might be the ones who unfairly reported me to you, might an individual or a lobby group) who have used this "gaming the system" approach to run me out. See my comments Talk:Rohingya_people#Hindu_Rohingyans.3F and Talk:Rohingya_people#AFP_reports_Massacre_of_Mayanmar_Hindus_by_Rohingya_Muslims:_pls_include_in_the_article (real reason someone does not want this content there and they want to run me out). Those COI editors hates me for it. Hence, this trick to get me out of here. Can't you see, shouldn't you check the facts first? Shouldn't you have clarified with me first before blindly issuing a warning? Shouldn't you give me benefit of doubt?
Fifth, I saw your warning and ban only now. So you warned me and then you banned me day later for the same thing? How come when I have not attacked anyone next day and all I did was just provide several sourced counter-facts on the talk page that biased and COI editors may not want to see. This is a big give away that there is systematic targeting of me to silence me by the lobby group, to block any inconvenient unbiased fact from getting into the article edits. I am basically being told, stay away from that article or else I will be bamboozled because I am trying to incorporate unbiased facts that are not liked by biased COI editors.
Sixth, this is obvious here, I am being warned for making general comments and without making any edits I am being run out of wiki. You banned me simply because you want to totally shut me out and merely because I provided a logical rational source-based reply? Who gave you this right? Try this instead Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and you must apply WP:AGF to me. This is absurd to target me and warn me for making disruptive edits when I made zero edits on that page. I am targeted because I made generic comments about wikipedia having mechanism for keeping pro-terrorism WP:COI editors out. Do not misuse and abuse warning process, someone is obviously Wikipedia:Gaming the system against me here.
Correct your mistakes by retracting your warning and ban and instead punish the person who is gaming the system by reporting me. I will give you good faith and assume you are not part of gaming the system in running me out and unfairly targeting me to silence me. If so, you still have made severe error of judgment. You rushed to warn me without doing proper due diligence and facts checks. This is bad adminship. If you do not have time to fact check, ask me first. Do not rush to warn people incorrectly. What about you assuming good faith towards me? Shouldn't you practice what you are preaching me? You failed in exercising it yourself. At this stage, I will give you benefit of doubt that you fail to give me. I am not taking you to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to remove your admin rights for misusing/failing here. Retract your warning and ban. In future do not rush to warn anyone without fact checking, without assuming good faith, without clarifying first. I am doing the right thing against you, do the right thing against me and correct your mistakes against me (revoke your warnings and ban). I am not interested in personal fights, I am not interested in punishing you either. I am interested in you correcting your behavior, This is so dangerous to have admin rights in the hands of someone who does not exercise due diligence and fact checks, be extremely careful how you use (or misuse, like you warned me blindly) admin rights. Do you realize damage you are causing to wiki community? Do you realize how many innocent people you might have warned? How much unfair negativity and loss of productivity you might have caused? How many positively contributing editors you might have ran out of wikipedia due to blindly rushing into warnings and blocks without fact checking and due diligence? This is definitely not on. Biased COI people who reported me and you (who jumped the gun without checking) have committed far worse infractions than you are systematically targeting me for (with unfair warning and ban), Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot as Wikipedia:ANI process would be my next remedy. I am happy to rephrase my heading from "Muslim" to "biased/COI muslim" (my comments on talk page had made it clear but you just pounced on me without bothering to check, it seems it seems you did not even read my comments on talk page for which you blocked/warned/banned me), I am even willing to face any reprimand for any error I might have committed but I am determined those COI and Biased editors and incompetent-admin (who do not apply due diligence and fact checking) are also punished and taken to task because they are bigger danger to the wikipedia community. I will assume you erred once only, now fix it or else I will be forced take you to task via ANI. I am being assertive (still sensible) because you ran over me like a blind bull, not once but twice and bamboozled me with misuse of admin rights. I refuse to be a victim and I will contribute to wikipedia community by outing rogue admin who inaptly and blatantly misapply rights given to you (but first, I am giving you benefit of doubt to correct your mistake here, I will wait your corrective action).

222.165.9.81 (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  regentspark (comment) 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
I've blocked you for continuing with the "muslim editors" nonsense on Talk:Rohingya people. Warning above. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (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).

222.165.9.81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was "blocked for disruptive editing" when "I made ZERO edits to the article". This is absurd, nonsensical, and gross misuse of admin rights by the "bulldozer in the china shop" who blindly ran over me. I was unfairly blocked by regentspark without fact checking and due diligence by him. In my comments below, the term "you" refers to the user "Regentspark".
I did practice WP:AGF but you did not, you also failed to fact check, you failed in applying due diligence and you misused admin rights by rushing to warn me unfairly.
First, I have not targeted any specific editor. In response to another user's comment I had made a generic omment about wikipedia having builtin mechanism (being watched by fellow editors) to block out the "conflict of interest" editors promoting/supporting terrorist propaganda. In my comments there is no attack on any "specific individual" editor, I only made general statement. This is absurd.
Second, I have made no edits on that Rohingya people wikipedia article for which you are issuing me warning, I only made suggestions and comments on the talk page of that article. How can I be making "disruptive edits" when I made zero edits? This makes no sense. Do not rush to warn.
Third, this is obvious, someone is trying to run me out for raising inconvenient facts on that talk page, that editor whoever is making malicious and motivated complaints against me should be warned for gaming the system. Revoke this warning against me.
Fourth, to remove POV from the article, I made suggestions for improvements on talk page of that article with several sources to back my suggestions, some of which was incorporated into the article by other editors (i am at arms' length from edits). My suggestions were obviously not liked by those COI and biased editors (I do not know who they are, they might be the ones who unfairly reported me to you, might an individual or a lobby group) who have used this "gaming the system" approach to run me out. See my comments Talk:Rohingya_people#Hindu_Rohingyans.3F and Talk:Rohingya_people#AFP_reports_Massacre_of_Mayanmar_Hindus_by_Rohingya_Muslims:_pls_include_in_the_article (real reason someone does not want this content there and they want to run me out). Those COI editors hates me for it. Hence, this trick to get me out of here. Can't you see, shouldn't you check the facts first? Shouldn't you have clarified with me first before blindly issuing a warning? Shouldn't you give me benefit of doubt?
Fifth, I saw your warning and ban only now. So you warned me and then you banned me day later for the same thing? How come when I have not attacked anyone next day and all I did was just provide several sourced counter-facts on the talk page that biased and COI editors may not want to see. This is a big give away that there is systematic targeting of me to silence me by the lobby group, to block any inconvenient unbiased fact from getting into the article edits. I am basically being told, stay away from that article or else I will be bamboozled because I am trying to incorporate unbiased facts that are not liked by biased COI editors.
Sixth, this is obvious here, I am being warned for making general comments and without making any edits I am being run out of wiki. You banned me simply because you want to totally shut me out and merely because I provided a logical rational source-based reply? Who gave you this right? Try this instead Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and you must apply WP:AGF to me. This is absurd to target me and warn me for making disruptive edits when I made zero edits on that page. I am targeted because I made generic comments about wikipedia having mechanism for keeping pro-terrorism WP:COI editors out. Do not misuse and abuse warning process, someone is obviously Wikipedia:Gaming the system against me here.
Correct your mistakes by retracting your warning and ban and instead punish the person who is gaming the system by reporting me. I will give you good faith and assume you are not part of gaming the system in running me out and unfairly targeting me to silence me. If so, you still have made severe error of judgment. You rushed to warn me without doing proper due diligence and facts checks. This is bad adminship. If you do not have time to fact check, ask me first. Do not rush to warn people incorrectly. What about you assuming good faith towards me? Shouldn't you practice what you are preaching me? You failed in exercising it yourself. At this stage, I will give you benefit of doubt that you fail to give me. I am not taking you to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to remove your admin rights for misusing/failing here. Retract your warning and ban. In future do not rush to warn anyone without fact checking, without assuming good faith, without clarifying first. I am doing the right thing against you, do the right thing against me and correct your mistakes against me (revoke your warnings and ban). I am not interested in personal fights, I am not interested in punishing you either. I am interested in you correcting your behavior, This is so dangerous to have admin rights in the hands of someone who does not exercise due diligence and fact checks, be extremely careful how you use (or misuse, like you warned me blindly) admin rights. Do you realize damage you are causing to wiki community? Do you realize how many innocent people you might have warned? How much unfair negativity and loss of productivity you might have caused? How many positively contributing editors you might have ran out of wikipedia due to blindly rushing into warnings and blocks without fact checking and due diligence? This is definitely not on. Biased COI people who reported me and you (who jumped the gun without checking) have committed far worse infractions than you are systematically targeting me for (with unfair warning and ban), Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot as Wikipedia:ANI process would be my next remedy. I am happy to rephrase my heading from "Muslim" to "biased/COI muslim" (my comments on talk page had made it clear but you just pounced on me without bothering to check, it seems you did not even read my comments on talk page for which you blocked/warned/banned me), I am even willing to face any reprimand for any error I might have committed but I am determined those COI and Biased editors and incompetent-admin (who do not apply due diligence and fact checking) are also punished and taken to task because they are bigger danger to the wikipedia community. I will assume you erred once only, now fix it or else I will be forced take you to task. I am being assertive (still sensible) because you ran over me like a blind bull, not once but twice and bamboozled me with misuse of admin rights. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This wall of text does nothing to show you understand the problem with your approach to collegial interaction. Please be warned that if you do not adjust your approach when this block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2017 (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.

Unilateral action not acceptable. Punish and warn all who have erred. else I am willing to go to ANI and if I suffer longer ban as a consequence of outing others more severe and damaging behavior then so be it. The ban should be reviewed on the merit of my argument, that was not done, can not use arbitrary POV and subjective 'feelings", use "rules based objective review". I expect only those admins to review who have no bias and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with this topic, preferably admins who are not known to this erring admin and who are not related to ethnicity/religion of any parties to this "Rohingya" article. If you decline then please provide "point-by-point specific" logical response by citing specific wikipedia guideline (and counter guidelines, by clearly showing balance of weight in your evaluation). Address each point raised by me, do not blindly and summarily reject with terse comment without refuting/addressing each specific point raised by me. Please follow the due process of investigation or else refrain from "lazy knee-jerk reviews" and "warning/bans based on vague statements with no specifics". I expect the ban be revoked and erring admins and parties be warned too. Thanks.222.165.9.81 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you do not get to dictate how your unblock request is answered - but you are welcome to report my decline at ANI if you so wish once your block expires. The reason for your block is quite clear to me and I agree with it, and I do not have to respond to your great wall of text point by point if none of it addresses your unacceptable behaviour. For the record, I have no connection, ethnically, culturally, or any other way, with the subject in question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2017 (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).

222.165.9.81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

His ban is wrong because I made "Zero Edits" and yet he banned me for "disruptive edits." Thus is not true. Ignore everything else, and do not draw conclusion on other things. Purely on the basis of the fact I made no edits, this incorrect ban must be revoked. Additional new arguments can not be added post-fact to justify a ban that was primarily made on the wrong premise. If someone did the post-fact addition of new excuses to retain the ban, then it would be an indication of systematic targeting of me in a biased manner to keep me out at all costs.

That is good to know you have no COI, this inspires more trust. This is not dictating, this is reminding the admins and investigators that the "due process" has to be followed in a professional manner. If an Admin does not have time or inclination to follow the due process and provide point-by-point specifics, then they should refrain from indulging in something they can not do complete and competent justice. I understand you might be busy with other things but better to leave it to others who will be inclined to do a through and comprehensive job to address all issues. Please help me address my issues about other parties I raised (1. Article is POV (insert that tag and clean up), 2. Editors are COI and ganging up/gaming the system to keep people like me out at smallest pretext while committing bigger infringement themselves, 3. Admin jumped the gun without due diligence), it can not be one way street. I have another questions, do admins earn any kind of points for responding to requests? (Hence, they have incentive to accumulate quantity of responses, over "quality" of comprehensive and thoroughly analyzed responses. I do not know if that is the case or not. I read somewhere on wikipedia admins discussing a concept called "collecting the hats". Though I do not know what are those "hats", how are they accumulated, how it works, if it disadvantages editors (like me) if those hats-earning admins/editors do not act with completely propriety but just do a bare minimum knee-jerk job to earn point? I do not know if this is the case or how it all works, I am curious and keen to understand, so I can avoid pitfalls and also to remind those who are misusing it. For now, I can see wikipedia works only for those who know how to smartly game it well by staying under the radar "self-righteously incorrect and successful manipulators who maintain a facade of civility and fake fairness", this is something I do not want to adopt or use, but I want to understand it and counter it. I do realize I will be slammed, ganged up against and pounced on, by self-entitled successful wikipidians who have built the success on this hard-to-catch-and-prove dysfunctional negative behavior. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:RUNAWAY clearly says that talk page disruption is (a) possible, and (b) not allowed. Thus, your basic premise that you can't be disruptive because you made ZERO edits to the article is wrong. You obviously made disruptive edits to the talk page, and you continuously avoid discussing that. Instead, you just keep writing the same complains about you being a victim of bad admins. Instead of talking about them, you should focus on what you did (see WP:NOTTHEM).

You made multiple comments on Talk:Rohingya people claiming that anyone who is Muslim should be banned from editing the article because "terrorist organizations" "misuse wikipedia for their misleading false propaganda to recruit more terrorists" (those are your words). Such attitude is totally incompatible with a collaborative effort to build a neutral encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2017 (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.

  • Edits to talk pages are edits too, not just edits to article pages. Another thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that when you are blocked, unblock requests are not for continuing your complaints about other editors - an unblock request should address only the reason for your block and why you should be unblocked, and anything that does not address that can be and usually is ignored. Finally, your continuing scattergun attacks on just about everybody else here are pretty much guaranteed to get your latest unblock request declined too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A. Okay, "Boing! said Zebedee", now I understand what @RegentsPark: means by "disruptive edits". He blocked me for the "subjective and perceived" disruption on the talk page. Different standard of disruptive editing should apply on article (stricter criteria) versus and talk page (more lenient criteria), because talk page is for discussion. If people are shut out from discussing/engaging on talk page then there is no place left for them to discuss). Having said that "disruptive editing" still does not hold good here because "article is jointly edited by editors" (article = collaborative editing, that can be disrupted) and the "talk page is used to discuss how to evolve the consensus to edit the article"(talk page=discussion about editing is no disruption, discouraging people from talking/discussing/raising on talk page is disruption). In this light, discussion on the talk page does not fall into "disruptive editing", that is taking huge liberty to stretch the concept excessively, because we do not edit each others comments on talk page like we edit each others content on article hence we can not disrupt each others comments on talk page. I did not find any "documented wikipedia policy" that states "disruptive editing" can be stretched to apply to own-comments-only on talk page. This ban is not backed up by citing the specific wikipedia "text" that clearly puts talk page comments in disruptive editing comment. there are separate wikipedia guidelines on "editing article" and "wikipedia talk page". Talkpage guidelines clearly state that "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation." Instead of incorrect basis for warning and ban, Admin should have at least used more appropriate excuse/reason to warn or ban (if sustainable). That way it would have been more clear for me as to what to fix. Admins must exercise Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgement (not jump to rushed conclusions) and conduct appropriately (e.g. revoke warning and ban if made a rushed mistake), clearly explain specific causes of warning and ban (wikipedia guideline clearly says "Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)") leads to Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools (jumping the gun to a rushed ban and guideliens are clear admins must not use tools on an article they are a party "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality" because they are not neutral on that article). Banning me by using "a. wrong excuse" by "b. incorrectly applying" a "c. rushed judgment" based on "d. misunderstood basis" "e. not backed-up by citing specific text from the wikimedia policy" is "f. not sustainable". Hence, ban should be revoked. I do not think admin wanted to target me on purpose, he rushed, made mistake, fix it by revoking warning and ban. On another issue (that reason was not given as cause of warning or ban) I am happy to tone down and use diplomatic language. Please read the rest with open mind.
B. I do admit that I want to disrupt the current POV and COI on that talk page. No one should have problem with that "constructive edits that take the article forward by addressing current COI/POV". Help me with it instead.
C. I think, in making their judgment, the admin went "only by the heading" I used, instead of taking time to thoroughly read (with understanding) the whole post and comments by me. Selective and superficial skip-reading by a busy admin, leading to the error of judgment, this is my guess. If he thoroughly read, he would have understood me and my intentions and he would have taken a different approach me, perhaps would have asked me to rephrase some of my words. I used the word "Muslim" which can lead to misinterpretation. In hindsight, I realize that I should have been more specific in the choice of my words to eliminate any interpretation by others. I should have used the word "Muslim POV/COI/bias", though I have made it clear in the comments and text under that heading. Seems the admin (RegentsPark) who warned me did not go through the details of my post and simply determined based on heading and proceeded to warn me with a superficial glance.
D. This same concern, that I have raised about "Muslim POV and COI", has been independently raised several times by others by creating new heading on the talk page there, see these:
D1. Talk:Rohingya people#Biased,
D2. [Talk:Rohingya people#Article seems heavily biased towards Myanamar government and seems to be somebody.27s blog]] and
D3. Talk:Rohingya people#Article seems heavily biased towards Myanamar government and seems to be somebody.27s blog and more is we go back earlier.
E. If the admin tool time to thoroughly probe that the reputed-independently-sourced verifiable content provided by me Talk:Rohingya people#AFP reports Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims: pls include in the article barely finds any mention is article, then
E1. it shows my "constructive edit contribution" which negates allegations of "disruptive edits",
E2. it lends further credence to my concern (and others editors similar concerns highlighted in D1, D2 and D3) and
E3. If anyone make a effort to spend time to read through the holw thing, understand the issue completely, only then decide and conclude their investigation, I am sure they can I have sincerely tried to contribute constructively, concerns raised by me are also genuine (also raised by others) and I should not blocked out for that, I have not been disruptive. If the admins concern is about my language then he should have asked me to modify it.
F. I was issued a warning yesterday and then block today. unfortunately I saw those together only today. I had not seen the warning yesterday, so I never got a chance to discuss with RegentsPark. Today, I first saw the block and then i scrolled up and I saw the warning. By the time I saw the warning, Block was already done. I never had time to act on it, bit too fast to block. Though RegentsPark can not be faulted for me not reading my talk page everyday. But please consider that and revoke the ban.
G. I do not want to get discouraged and get lost form here. I still want to contribute to wikipedia and that article. I want to contribute via making suggestions on talk page only, I am not yet ready to start editing that "highly contentious article". My approach had been to provide high quality irrefutable sourced content on the talk page and then let other unbiased third-party editors (unrelated to me) do the edits in the article.
H. I am happy to use more diplomatic terminology and tone in my comments there if that was the main reason to block me though never told to me because it did not violate civility guideline.
I. My main concern is that the "POV/COI lobby" who may want to preserve the current bias in the article, may not want me there. They may use this block to try to permanently block me out in future. This aids and abets the dysfunctional lobbying behavior, keep the article in perpetual POV, discourages future editors who try to remove COI/POV to not get involved on that page due to fear of being blocked out under subjective pretext, etc.
J. Please revoke the ban and warning. I will use more diplomatic tone to continue to help "constructive editing suggestions" on the talk page to remove COI/POV to improve the article quality. (Also, if you the readers have time, to aid my learning please educated me on those "Earning the Hat" questions I have raised earlier). Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hat system, it's just a derogatory term used to accuse admins of only wanting to be an admin in order to "wear the admin hat". The same charged is levied against those who volunteer for other advanced permissions to take on extra voluntary work too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okie got it, thanks for the explanation. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 222.165.9.81, a couple of points. First, no one is going to read walls of text so please confine your comments to a few sentences. Second, vague statements about biases are not helpful and attempting to ascribe these biases to group demographics is unacceptable. If you want to continue editing here, focus on specific edits, discuss the reliability of sources, avoid labeling editors, and keep your comments brief. Otherwise you're not going to be here for very long. Best. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Regentspark: Admin Accountability? Demonstrate verifiable probity of your actions else revoke your warning and ban. Admins can not exercise authority without accountability. You need to be accountable as an admin by demonstrating that your warning and block are "based on specific Disruptive Editing rules/guidelines" for a "specific" and "verifiable" violations (you have not provided as per A and B), and not based on arbitrary "feelings", "random rushed judgment" or "subjective interpretations". I am very open to learning. Giving me link to "wall of text" as "vague reason" to warn and ban me while summarily discarding my painstaking effort to engage with you as "wall of text" is not fair.
  • A. Help me under exactly which specific passage you warned me for (this specific and offending text) and cite the specific passage in wiki guideline that supports it (violates that specific text of guideline).
  • B. After you warned, next day you blocked me, please provide the specific passage (violation) I committed after the warning that led to the block and cite the specific passage in wiki guideline that supports it. (It is a different point that I happen to see the ban first and then got to read the warning)
  • C. If you insert yourself into a specific issue to play the role of admin, then you are accountable by wiki guidelines to spend time and effort to properly investigate, understand and then reply and not just keep cutting corners with short vague and blanket warnings/replies to me. Please provide verifiable specifics that I can act on. You have not demonstrated A and B. I find it a "fall in line, be silent, do not demand accountability" kind of threat when you tell me "you will not be here long" (why, demonstrate it to me per A and B). Probity and professionalism please, with a friendly admin tone please. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E. About not being here long enough. I am determined to stay and I have given myself two goals.<>E1. Learn, learn and learn, without being corrupted by prevalent culture of successful wikipedia admins and editors. Even through this discussion I had to put lot of time and effort to read a large number of guidelines to learn. That was good.<E2.>Champion the "anti-dysfunctional" behavior of successful self-entitled editors and admins, to change the wiki culture from trigger-happy excessive and rushed warning based negative-reinforcement oriented approach to specific-probity-based encouraging-positive-enforcement approach. This means I will often have to take stand against the well-connected admins and experienced editors who know the system better than me and, who can game it while staying under the radar. I do not want to antagonize or demonize them. But I want to learn enough to ask them the right questions to hold them accountable. My goal is to basically engage and help them reform themselves, and not run them out. I will reason, reason and reason (I will use more "wall of text", those who do not have patience to read thoroughly and reason without being frustrated, should not be the admin). I will use counter-warning and complaints to the forums as last resort, only when reason has failed. Because I am willing to take this longer route, at great personal stress, to help transform the current "rotten excessively-negative-reinforcement-based trigger-happy wikipedia culture successful admins and editors adopt". That is my positive contribution to the wikipedia, though I will have to pay the price by facing lot more negativity. Please help me. Please start with introspection. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:222.165.9.81&oldid=803062414"