Edit war on M. S. Golwalkar
Your recent editing history at M. S. Golwalkar 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. 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.
A long explanation has been posted on the talk page awaiting your arrival. You need to participate in the discussion and make progress towards consensus instead of reverting. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear @Kautilya3: can you stop reverting my edits? You know very well you are edit warring. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will stop reverting only after you engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page, and respond to my points. You should not be reverting so soon after coming back from a block! This is insane! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear @Kautilya3: how calm and meaningful are you by reverting me incessantly? How meaningful is your unilateral "Consequently I shall revert" and immediate revert? --AmritasyaPutraT 15:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear @Kautilya3: you have reverted me once again? Suit yourself Kautilya3. You feel you can write "Consequently, I shall revert" in a solo "discussion" and that is the judgement. Your ego and anger are wholly yours. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear @Kautilya3: how calm and meaningful are you by reverting me incessantly? How meaningful is your unilateral "Consequently I shall revert" and immediate revert? --AmritasyaPutraT 15:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will stop reverting only after you engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page, and respond to my points. You should not be reverting so soon after coming back from a block! This is insane! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a solo discussion. It was waiting for you to come back and respond. If you choose not to respond, it is your choice. But you can't use reverts in place of a proper discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I cannot but you can because you revert in a team. You could have waited for a response -- you were explicitly told not to revert by the admin who warned you for edit warring. Why did you revert? It is upto your conscience, you revert me incessantly. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even assuming we did it as a "team", we never did more reverts than you did. When you breached 3RR and Vanamonde was stuck, I did a fourth revert (on the ABISY page), and doing so saved you from a block. When you breached 3RR and I was stuck (on the Vidya Bharati page), then Vanamonde did the fourth revert. In all cases, you were the leading reverter. So, you can't use this as an excuse for your failure to discuss things. I have never reverted anybody except for vandals. In fact, nobody here reverts anybody. You are the only one that uses reverts as a weapon to force your way. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know you will cook up something with slight inaccuracies here and there and simple ignore the actual question that was asked directly: you were explicitly told not to revert by the admin who warned you for edit warring. Why did you revert? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was warned by Bbb3 that I shouldn't breach 3RR just because you got blocked. And, I didn't breach it. Your fourth revert was illegal. You will get into greater trouble if you keep defending it, or claim that it should stand for ever. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- He explicitly told you not to revert but you did immediately after 24h. Do you mean to say no matter what is the argument I am perennially incorrect and you will simply keep reverting? Where did you pick up the "Illegal"? Quite ingenious! --AmritasyaPutraT 17:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was warned by Bbb3 that I shouldn't breach 3RR just because you got blocked. And, I didn't breach it. Your fourth revert was illegal. You will get into greater trouble if you keep defending it, or claim that it should stand for ever. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know you will cook up something with slight inaccuracies here and there and simple ignore the actual question that was asked directly: you were explicitly told not to revert by the admin who warned you for edit warring. Why did you revert? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even assuming we did it as a "team", we never did more reverts than you did. When you breached 3RR and Vanamonde was stuck, I did a fourth revert (on the ABISY page), and doing so saved you from a block. When you breached 3RR and I was stuck (on the Vidya Bharati page), then Vanamonde did the fourth revert. In all cases, you were the leading reverter. So, you can't use this as an excuse for your failure to discuss things. I have never reverted anybody except for vandals. In fact, nobody here reverts anybody. You are the only one that uses reverts as a weapon to force your way. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I cannot but you can because you revert in a team. You could have waited for a response -- you were explicitly told not to revert by the admin who warned you for edit warring. Why did you revert? It is upto your conscience, you revert me incessantly. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a solo discussion. It was waiting for you to come back and respond. If you choose not to respond, it is your choice. But you can't use reverts in place of a proper discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Some feedback might be welcome here. Or a block for the page for a couple of weeks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Talk page discussion: Talk:M._S._Golwalkar#Discussion_on_two_snippets_of_content_attributed_to_The_Hindu_and_TOI. Looking at the root cause of disagreement is welcome. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: I don't think Bbb23 will get entire context because he does not know about the earlier articles. You are my mentor and has followed my edits now and then for some time now. Can you give your two cents? --AmritasyaPutraT 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would also be glad to have Joshua Jonathan's opinion. However, it is only Vanamonde93 and I, who face the brunt of your reverts, that truly understand what it is to be at the receiving end. As I mentioned on that Talk:M. S. Golwalkar, you wrote a comment on my edit at 1:28 UTC and reverted my edit at 1:34 UTC, while I was offline. Was that a "unilateral" edit? I told you that very morning to raise specific questions about content on the talk page, and you did so only today, after you did 6 more reverts of my edit. Wouldn't it have been far better to follow my suggestion on that day, instead of all this edit-warring? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sir, the discussion is going so fairly on the article talk page, I think we should abandon this argument. Is it fair for you 'two' to revert me 8 times? That was the first revert... it was a contested new addition, I reverted, notified you on your talk page and immediately opened a new section in talk page too explaining in great detail why I reverted. You may see that "Consequently I shall revert" are unfair because you should wait for response before revert. Anyway right now it is exactly like you want. Lets leave this discussion. This is spurious... we ought to discuss only the content. You don't think when you 'two' revert I don't face it, it is more difficult for me. You two made five complaints to ani and I have been indeed blocked twice. Is that not the receiving end. --AmritasyaPutraT 19:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Other than the one revert I made on the ABISY page when you breached 3RR, can you point to a single instance where I reverted an edit that you have made? [The discussion on the talk page is going well now, because you have given up doing reverts. If you din't start off by doing a revert 4 days ago, it could have gone well right on that day. If you want things to get better, please give up doing reverts. I have been telling you this since the very first day!] Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can. We are not continuing this discussion in this manner. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Other than the one revert I made on the ABISY page when you breached 3RR, can you point to a single instance where I reverted an edit that you have made? [The discussion on the talk page is going well now, because you have given up doing reverts. If you din't start off by doing a revert 4 days ago, it could have gone well right on that day. If you want things to get better, please give up doing reverts. I have been telling you this since the very first day!] Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sir, the discussion is going so fairly on the article talk page, I think we should abandon this argument. Is it fair for you 'two' to revert me 8 times? That was the first revert... it was a contested new addition, I reverted, notified you on your talk page and immediately opened a new section in talk page too explaining in great detail why I reverted. You may see that "Consequently I shall revert" are unfair because you should wait for response before revert. Anyway right now it is exactly like you want. Lets leave this discussion. This is spurious... we ought to discuss only the content. You don't think when you 'two' revert I don't face it, it is more difficult for me. You two made five complaints to ani and I have been indeed blocked twice. Is that not the receiving end. --AmritasyaPutraT 19:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would also be glad to have Joshua Jonathan's opinion. However, it is only Vanamonde93 and I, who face the brunt of your reverts, that truly understand what it is to be at the receiving end. As I mentioned on that Talk:M. S. Golwalkar, you wrote a comment on my edit at 1:28 UTC and reverted my edit at 1:34 UTC, while I was offline. Was that a "unilateral" edit? I told you that very morning to raise specific questions about content on the talk page, and you did so only today, after you did 6 more reverts of my edit. Wouldn't it have been far better to follow my suggestion on that day, instead of all this edit-warring? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: I don't think Bbb23 will get entire context because he does not know about the earlier articles. You are my mentor and has followed my edits now and then for some time now. Can you give your two cents? --AmritasyaPutraT 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
First, the only article I'm interested in is the Golwalkar article. Any other articles that have problems will have to be handled in a new report filed at WP:AN3. Second, I blocked Amritasya for 72 hours for breaching WP:3RR. At the time, I warned Kautilya3 that the block did not give them license to revert Armitasya. That did not mean that they could not edit the article. They just couldn't revert the material at issue.
So, Amritasya, can you identify an edit by Kautilya3 during your block where he reverted your material?
As to the new activity of reverting by both editors, I'm going to give you a free pass for the two reverts each of you have done. However, any more reverts by either of you, even if you don't breach 3RR, will result in a block without any additional notice. Finally, Kautilya, your comment - "I will stop reverting only after you engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page, and respond to my points" - is in and itself a promise to violate policy. There is no exemption from edit warring based on another editor's refusal to engage in discussion or to address your points.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: diff, the edit summary should tell you sufficient, the edit put it into a hidden text which was selectively half of the "material at issue" which he wanted deleted while the other half of opposed addition was kept out of such comment altogether to begin with. He made other edits too, I did not object to them at all. I did respond on talk page. This is for the sake of replying to your request, since he has agreed now on the article talk page that the content is indeed verifiable and referenced and now his concern is only relevance, two new participants have also come and they have provided one more academic reference too to back up one of the two snippets... I expect you to completely ignore that diff unless you check the article talk page section and get the context. Since the block was on me it sent a message inherently that my position is weaker and Kautilya3's superior which he has abandoned, I do not hold him personally for that rash comment, unless he follows in action, that language is the sort of way he consistently replies but does re-read my replies calmly on talk page after a day or two of break. Most recent previous case, if you are interested: article talk page link. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I need two diffs. One showing your edit before you were blocked and how that compares to the diff you listed above. A couple more things. I'm not interested in context or the talk page at the moment. On a related note, your block did not mean that your position was "weaker" than his, only that you were the one who breached 3RR. Frankly, I am not interested in the content dispute; I am interested only in editor conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: okay, compare this diff (before the block) to the diff I listed above. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I need two diffs. One showing your edit before you were blocked and how that compares to the diff you listed above. A couple more things. I'm not interested in context or the talk page at the moment. On a related note, your block did not mean that your position was "weaker" than his, only that you were the one who breached 3RR. Frankly, I am not interested in the content dispute; I am interested only in editor conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of reverts (the first 7 copied from AN3 complaint):
- diff 01:34, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (12,917 bytes) (-846) . . (There is no discussion that says SG, or "The Hindu" is not reliable. Making consensus on the article talk page BeforE such significant edits will be highly appreciated. New section already made.) ]
- diff 05:36, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (11,463 bytes) (-2,266) . . ("also known as 'Shri Guruji remains as per talk page consensus. Jaff is indeed informative, thanks Kautilya! "Forgotten" was an opinion piece which was shown as inaccurate subsequently in the same newspaper.) ]
- diff 05:55, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (12,513 bytes) (+1,049) . . (There are two reference here. It provides a view differeing from Jaff. It was there in the article from long and there is no express reason to purge these two reference without discussion. SG is neither follower of Glowalkar nor RSS member.)]
- diff 13:16, 12 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (14,964 bytes) (-410) . . (Remove opinion piece. Put back TOI -- it is WP:RS.) (undo | thank)]
- diff 10:27, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (15,000 bytes) (-374) . . (Undid revision 629420475 WP:BRD and WP:3RR says when contentious addition is reverted reverted, a consensus on article talk page has to be obtained "before" reinserting it. Not the other way round.)]
- diff 10:38, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (15,000 bytes) (-374) . . (Undid revision 629421165 by Kautilya3 (talk) Kindly restrain from edit war, there is discussion on talk page. I was improving the reference by adding date while you nuked it yet again. Please.)]
- diff 11:14, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (16,186 bytes) (+812) . . (→Leadership of RSS: S. Gurumurthy is reliable. This reference was in the article at least since June 2014 and is discussed in the talk page also. There are four other independent publsiher mentioned on talk page.)]
- diff 21:01, 14 October 2014 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (16,870 bytes) (+314) . . (Blanking the Gurumurthy source and summary)
- diff 14:20, 16 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (19,246 bytes) (+435) . . (→Leadership of RSS: Bbb23 explicitly said Kautilya3 does not get a license to revert. I could not have participated in discussion.)
- diff 14:59, 16 October 2014 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (18,811 bytes) (-435) . . (Undid revision 629854258 by AmritasyaPutra (talk); See talk page where a long explanation has been posted)
- diff 15:01, 16 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (19,246 bytes) (+435) . . (Undid revision 629858648 by Kautilya3 (talk) Sir, stop taking this personally and stop edit war. I have put my explanation too. You can edit edit war or discuss.)
- diff 15:21, 16 October 2014 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (18,811 bytes) (-435) . . (Undid revision 629858920 by AmritasyaPutra (talk); Please engage in discussion on the talk page instead of reverting)
The 8th revert here, mine, is a revert of the 7th edit by Amritasya. (The disputed content was blanked and still left in the source). After Amritasya returned from his block two more rounds of reverts ensued. However, my position is now vindicated, viz., that Amritasya has been using reverts as a substitute for meaningful discussion on the talk page. The suggestion I made here on my talk page to discuss content:
- diff 09:31, 10 October 2014 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (20,609 bytes) (+720) . . (→M. S. Golwalkar: Reply) (undo)
was followed by Amritasya finally here:
- diff 15:34, 16 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (65,068 bytes) (+1,466) . . (→Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 can you stop incessantly reverting within seconds and respond here your specific objections?: new section)
This was the first time in the entire episode when he mentioned specific issues regarding the content of the article. (Until then, it was merely a repetition of his claim that "Gurumurthy is reliable.") He also invited comment from others on the Wikiproject:India talk page [1]. Despite the fact none of the interlocuters supported his claim that "Gurumurthy is reliable", they provided other sources that I am now looking into. So, discussions are now progressing. At 19:55 last night, he declared "the discussion is going so fairly on the article talk page, I think we should abandon this argument."
@Bbb23:, I took your warning to me on the AN3 page to mean that you didn't expect me to breach my 3RR after Amritasya was blocked. If you really meant that I could never revert his "illegal" 4th revert on the 10th October, that would have meant that you were rewarding him for breaching 3RR. His preferred version of the article would stay there for ever! You didn't mean that, did you?
In any case, if you would like to look into my conduct indepedently, my position is entirely clear. I felt that this particular user is not engaging in meaningful discussions on the talk page because he is using reverting as a substitute for discussion. So the only way to get him to talk is to force him to stop reverting. When I declared openly that I would re-revert every revert that he made, I thought he would come to the realization that reverts would not help. But, regrettably, he came to the realization only after going through the whole exercise. (Maybe that he did, can't be sure yet.)
If there was an alternative way to deal with the situation, I would be glad to know, as I have asked you previously on the AN3 page: [2]. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I did initiate and take part in discussion, I disagree with Kautilya3's comments about me. Why would I put in content again if they were not reverted in the first place? I will not be responding here further unless my input is explicitly asked for. --AmritasyaPutraT 10:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:, Here is a revealing comment from AmritasyaPutra last night:
- diff 20:23, 16 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (83,546 bytes) (+416) . . (→Discussion on two snippets of content attributed to The Hindu and TOI)
- He states, The content dispute was about keeping one opinion excluding other. It took him 6 days and 9 reverts for him to reach the point where he is ready to articulate what the dispute is about! It can be easily verified that "Patel" and "Shastri" were mentioned by him for the first time at 19:50 last night. Until that point, none of us had any idea what his issue was! You mentioned on AN3 that you were blocking him for "lack of insight into his conduct". Unfortunately, we have to deal with this lack of insight pretty much every second day. He turns a deaf ear to anything Vanamonde93 or I tell him. I hope Joshua Jonathan and you can reinforce our message that he needs to engage in discussion more vigorously and stop using reverts as a device to get his way. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You both should take a break now. Couple of days, at least. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Or forever from each other. You 3 have been fighting over many articles for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You both should take a break now. Couple of days, at least. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:, Here is a revealing comment from AmritasyaPutra last night:
I've read Amritasya's points and skimmed through Kautilya's wall of text. I may repeat myself, but here are the key things I want to say (not in any particular order):
- Reverting another editor because they refuse to discuss their changes or discuss them adequately is not exempt from edit warring and may be okay once or twice, but after that it becomes problematic.
- It appears undisputed that Kautilya continued the previous edit war by reverting Amritasya.
- I don't care about the precise content dispute. I'm not here to resolve content disputes but to administer policy, and, in this particular instance, edit warring policy.
- When I warned Kautilya about not reverting, I did not mean either of the two extremes he mentions, not just immediately, and not forever. Waiting a day, or however long it was exactly, was too soon.
- Content disputes are resolved in the usual ways. Just glancing at the talk page makes me believe that essentially this is a 2-1 dispute with Kautilya and Vanamonde on one side and Amritasya on the other. That's not much of a consensus. I don't know what's already been tried, but there is WP:DRN and you could also start a focused RfC. Superficially, I don't see any justification for Kautilya's reverts from a conduct policy perspective.
- Joshua has the right idea, but a couple of days is too short. I suggest both of you not touch the article for a week. During that time, you can discuss things on the talk page and use DR mechanisms to help resolve the issues. I'm not going to force you to do that, but, as I said before, you risk being blocked if you continue your previous behavior.
- Finally, to the extent there are problems on other articles where the same parties are involved, I urge you not to transfer your energies to battling in those articles while you take a break from this article. It won't go well.
--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, Dharma, Joshua,
I am good with the break, expect me to abide by that advise with zero article space edits for two weeks (till 1 Nov) ten days starting now. Concern: we know '3' is right, I personally feel it is more than coincidence for the same two editors to have complained to ani/an3 five times and to turn up together on same side on multiple articles that I have edited before. Kautilya3 has recently switched to this new username, we have interacted before.
Why merely article space? Because I want to be fair to be the GA reviews I have started and I am strictly concerned only with articles which have no edit by any of the '3', not even on those article's talk page. I have only received gratitude on that front and zero complaints so that should not be any concern. I welcome scrutiny and enforcement if required. Joshua, you are aware I have withdrawn unilaterally from three articles earlier (I expect a simple zero/one word acknowledgement) to put off escalation with the two. This unilateral self-measure has not improved scenario and I was compelled to give a push back on this article; this one too I had edited before the two. You have also acknowledged me being extra careful (1, 2). In the light of the above note by Bbb23 and my actions so far to help the situation I expect that these measures be noted. Anyone is welcome, rather invited, speaking for myself, to scrutinize my edits on a regular basis.
@Kautilya3: Like I said, I am okay that you have acknowledged my objections on this article and are willing to work on them and I am perfectly fine if it takes even a week or more to word it the way you prefer, I have nothing more to add to the discussion there. I do expect it to be taken to a logical end: put back TOI content for which an academic reference with specific quote has been provided by another editor too like we agreed. Either keep or not-keep both opinions coming from equally involved notable persons published by same publisher, you may reword it the way you would prefer but do not exclude one over the other. Or if you want to take it up after a month I am okay with that too but we abide by the agreement we reached on the talk page. No matter how it sounds -- I will not continue to back out of what I see as harassment. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh... Amritasya, I have no quarrel with you, no intent to harass or whatever. And, I have never taken you to ANI (not to be confused with AN3). My only problem with you is that you revert my edits without justification, poor justification or without adequate discussion. If you stop doing that, we will get along fine. Bbb23's guidance to me was that instead of re-reverting your reverts, I should go to WP:DRN or other notice boards. So, that is what will happen in future if you continue to revert my edits. It is not going to be pleasant, but that is the guidance I have been given, for better or worse. You can edit whatever articles you please. I don't have any problems with it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: to begin with, stop such commentary, stop following me, stop reverting me. I had also requested very politely to go to RSN for the long standing sources before expressly purging them, I understand it makes difference when Bbb23 has said the same. I expect you to abide by the agreement we reached on the talk page of the article. Please understand my perspective, I can most definitely dig up your comments of: you should be checked by an admin/you should be banned/you should be reported/you are incompetent/of course I follow your edits/I challenge you have not read... . I can give a wall of diff to support my statements. Please understand my perspective and avoid the indefinitely repeated commentary. Shall we give it a try? --AmritasyaPutraT 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Amritasya, Please take a look at the article now. I have added a significant amount of positive information taken from Andersen, 1972 and softened the charges made by Sardar Patel. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, I will take a look at this article after two weeks. Is keep-both/not-keep-both concern addressed? Cheers! --AmritasyaPutraT 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: strike off your comment about editor here. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the comment about you? I don't think your strike-off of "completely" was all there was to it. But I will strike off my comment in the interest of friendship :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- In that case talk about the "completely" directly. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the comment about you? I don't think your strike-off of "completely" was all there was to it. But I will strike off my comment in the interest of friendship :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: strike off your comment about editor here. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, I will take a look at this article after two weeks. Is keep-both/not-keep-both concern addressed? Cheers! --AmritasyaPutraT 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Amritasya, Please take a look at the article now. I have added a significant amount of positive information taken from Andersen, 1972 and softened the charges made by Sardar Patel. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: to begin with, stop such commentary, stop following me, stop reverting me. I had also requested very politely to go to RSN for the long standing sources before expressly purging them, I understand it makes difference when Bbb23 has said the same. I expect you to abide by the agreement we reached on the talk page of the article. Please understand my perspective, I can most definitely dig up your comments of: you should be checked by an admin/you should be banned/you should be reported/you are incompetent/of course I follow your edits/I challenge you have not read... . I can give a wall of diff to support my statements. Please understand my perspective and avoid the indefinitely repeated commentary. Shall we give it a try? --AmritasyaPutraT 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Amritasya, will it interest you to vote on this: [3]? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I should not. I will get immediately tagged with {{subst:canvassed|AmritasyaPutra}} --AmritasyaPutraT 05:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh AP, that's a nice gesture from Kautilya3! This is no canvassing; this is an invitation, a friendly gesture! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- And, for a change, K3 (sorry, littke joke; I also shorten Van) and Van disagree there! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't think Kautilya's invitation was unfriendly, I was merely noting policy what was pasted at the top of the afd page. If we want to discuss Van here, do you remember he opened an ANI for an even milder comment from me alleging canvassing? Although I would have liked to participate, I think that disucssion has run its course. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- My invitation was also a friendly gesture! --AmritasyaPutraT 13:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't think Kautilya's invitation was unfriendly, I was merely noting policy what was pasted at the top of the afd page. If we want to discuss Van here, do you remember he opened an ANI for an even milder comment from me alleging canvassing? Although I would have liked to participate, I think that disucssion has run its course. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- And, for a change, K3 (sorry, littke joke; I also shorten Van) and Van disagree there! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh AP, that's a nice gesture from Kautilya3! This is no canvassing; this is an invitation, a friendly gesture! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
regarding ongoing Talk on Shiv Sena
Removed this from header: and you warning me for edit warring - please check what vanamonde93 and AsceticRose are ganging up on
Dear Sir - Did you notice only me in discussions or reverting content for "Shiv Sena"? vanamonde93 and AsceticRose were the stubborn and unreasonable users that ganged up on me - and kept reverting my edits while the discussion was ongoing on talk page. they started in edit war - not me. and you only could find me at fault?? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiv_Sena&action=history --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Sdmarathe: I put a warning notice both on your and Vanamonde93's talk page. He deleted it immediately, you are also free to delete. Both of you are edit warr'ing. Since you seem to be new I assume you may not be aware of WP:3RR. Vanamonde93 is gaming the system by deleting exactly 3 times in 24h, if he reverts 4th time he will be blocked but even if he does not revert 4 times and continues such gaming he will be blocked. And exactly same applies to you. Yes, I could see both are reverting even while there is a discussion on in the article talk page. But the involvement of AsceticRose is perhaps WP:AGF although s/he should not burst into the scene merely to co-revert. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmritasyaPutra: - Both Vanamonde93 and AsceticRose are really just out there to nit pick and paint their side of agenda - and paint it as a fact. It is disgusting that they do not even agree my suggestion to refer to the incidents as "allegation" even after vanamonde93 agreed that they are as such at the beginnging of the talk page. They are really gaming the system and ganging up on me (of course being a newbie!) Anyhow, AsceticRose is just acting like he owns the place - and is merely junmping to revert changes to support his beliefs. At one point he even generalizes his point of view as "commonly known" view. it is disgusting! --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, another role in the game. Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- It all happens when there is lack of third opinion or lack of resolution. You are wrong, no you are wrong never solves any problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, another role in the game. Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmritasyaPutra: - Both Vanamonde93 and AsceticRose are really just out there to nit pick and paint their side of agenda - and paint it as a fact. It is disgusting that they do not even agree my suggestion to refer to the incidents as "allegation" even after vanamonde93 agreed that they are as such at the beginnging of the talk page. They are really gaming the system and ganging up on me (of course being a newbie!) Anyhow, AsceticRose is just acting like he owns the place - and is merely junmping to revert changes to support his beliefs. At one point he even generalizes his point of view as "commonly known" view. it is disgusting! --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
thanks for your mediation and suggestions Sdmarathe (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you Sdmarathe! AmritasyaPutraT 05:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Christopher Columbus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christopher Columbus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Participation in article talk page discussion requested
Article talk page section. @Joshua Jonathan and Bladesmulti: can you take a look? --AmritasyaPutraT 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look. I've spend hours now on the etymology of India; it's been enough for now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
References removed
In this edit you removed the reference to Modernes Sanskrit: eine vergessene Literatur by Hanneder, which is referred to in the article. Please restore it, and please be careful when removing academic references — it's very easy to delete, but it takes a lot of effort to find the relevant sources. Thanks for your attempts to (mostly) improve the article, Shreevatsa (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Similarly, the reference to "Seth (2007)". There may be more: please check. Please think about how this error occurred and how to avoid it, and carefully restore all the in-use references you've deleted. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: oh I must have missed it, sorry about that, I have put them back with ISBN numbers diff. Will be rechecking the entire list. I will be working solely on the citation for a week or so. Left a message on article talk page also(Addressing citation style). Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Are you sure these were the only two references in use that were removed? How? (They are just two that I noticed; I didn't check thoroughly.) Do you have any method in place to prevent this sort of mistake from happening again, or will you just rely on someone noticing it as I accidentally happened to do? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: I spent half an hour clicking references and checking they hop to a citation entry. There are some which still don't but my edits have nothing to do with them. I will find the book and fill it in. I do not know of any automatic way to find the anomalies, I am depending on the time I am spending solely on tidying up the citations on this article ~ 1 week. I would have come to those missing citation (but reference still there) a little later if you had not pointed them out right away, that was remarkable; but I was not going to miss them! I want to take it up for GA. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: the references there are in horrible state (few incorrect ISBNs). I am advancing at snail's pace. I could use some help, can you? Or do you know who might be aware of the context and willing? I am only filling references and doing bare minimum cleanup, much later I will be doing a big trimming and rewrite to improve coherence. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure -- I'll be busy over the next few days, but if there are specific things (e.g. a list of the references with incorrect ISBNs) I'll try to find the time now and then to look them up. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- This one I couldn't fix and left for now: Tiwari, Bholanath (1955), भाषा विज्ञान (Bhasha Vijnan), ISBN 0-7007-1382-4. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to be ISBN 81-225-0007-2. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- This one I couldn't fix and left for now: Tiwari, Bholanath (1955), भाषा विज्ञान (Bhasha Vijnan), ISBN 0-7007-1382-4. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure -- I'll be busy over the next few days, but if there are specific things (e.g. a list of the references with incorrect ISBNs) I'll try to find the time now and then to look them up. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: the references there are in horrible state (few incorrect ISBNs). I am advancing at snail's pace. I could use some help, can you? Or do you know who might be aware of the context and willing? I am only filling references and doing bare minimum cleanup, much later I will be doing a big trimming and rewrite to improve coherence. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: I spent half an hour clicking references and checking they hop to a citation entry. There are some which still don't but my edits have nothing to do with them. I will find the book and fill it in. I do not know of any automatic way to find the anomalies, I am depending on the time I am spending solely on tidying up the citations on this article ~ 1 week. I would have come to those missing citation (but reference still there) a little later if you had not pointed them out right away, that was remarkable; but I was not going to miss them! I want to take it up for GA. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Are you sure these were the only two references in use that were removed? How? (They are just two that I noticed; I didn't check thoroughly.) Do you have any method in place to prevent this sort of mistake from happening again, or will you just rely on someone noticing it as I accidentally happened to do? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: oh I must have missed it, sorry about that, I have put them back with ISBN numbers diff. Will be rechecking the entire list. I will be working solely on the citation for a week or so. Left a message on article talk page also(Addressing citation style). Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, when you are done with the article Sanskrit, could you please make a list of the references you removed, and why? In the name of improving citation style, it is bad to actually slip in the removal of a few references. (For example, you have (again) removed the Hanneder 2009 reference we were talking about above — and the reason for doing so is not clear from your edit comments. No hurry; you can come up with the list of such removed references after you're done working on the article. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: I have completed reference cleanup. I want to take a look at it after a gap with fresh thoughts and do more content cleanup. I had kept the list of references I removed, here is the list with my reasoning:
- Warder, A.K. (1972), Indian kāvya Literature, Literary Criticism, vol. 1, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Because this was not used at all (even in this version before my first edit).
- Tiwari, Bholanath (1955), भाषा विज्ञान (Bhasha Vijnan), ISBN 0-7007-1382-4
- Because the ISBN is incorrect and I could not find any details of this book and there was no page number given either. The other ISBN you have provided also seems to be incorrect. It is very unlikely this book had ISBN. The content is not removed, I tagged it with cn tag. This seems to be the book (the year is different, no ISBN, location, language, title, and publisher updated): Tivārī, Bholānātha (1951). Bhāshā vijñāna (in Hindi). Allahabad: Kitāba Mahala. pp. 20–399.
- Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (1960), Indo-Aryan and Hindi, Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay
- Because I could not find any details of this book. It was used only once and that statement was referenced to staal 1963 as well. The content was not changed and remains referenced to staal 1963. This seems to be the book (the year is different, location, langugage, and title updated): Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (1969). Indo-Aryan & Hindi (in Hindi). Kolkata: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay.
- Hanneder, J. (2009), "Modernes Sanskrit: eine vergessene Literatur", in Straube, Martin; Steiner, Roland; Soni, Jayandra; Hahn, Michael (eds.), Pāsādikadānaṃ : Festschrift für Bhikkhu Pāsādika, Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 205–228, ISBN 978-3-923776-53-5
- Hanneder 2002 is present and used. Hanneder 2009 was used at only one place. I had removed that statement so I removed the citation as well. This is the only referenced content that I removed in ~80 edits. Let me know if you would want to reinstate it.
- There has been signifacnt cleanup by me and OccultZone, can you check over the content cleanup as well and a quick glance at all the "citation needed" tags! Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 07:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well this is not the full list; e.g. I notice you also removed Madhav Deshpande's ref and tagged the statements that were referenced to it with "citation needed". Why don't you come up with the full list and then we can talk. :-) Also do let me know when you're done working with the article so I can take a look. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Shreevatsa: this reference: <ref>M Deshpande "Efforts to vernacularise Sanskrit"</ref> ? Make it a reference if you have information. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well this is not the full list; e.g. I notice you also removed Madhav Deshpande's ref and tagged the statements that were referenced to it with "citation needed". Why don't you come up with the full list and then we can talk. :-) Also do let me know when you're done working with the article so I can take a look. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed"?
So I change Casey Dellacqua's "Personal Life" section from "Casey Dellacqua is a lesbian" to "Casey Dellacqua is openly gay" and you write on my user page that my edits appear to constitute vandalism? What are you doing? 20:50, 27 October 2014 User:87.217.136.165 aka user:Narciso003
- Formally, Narciso003 is edit-warring,
- But this was a good solution, AP. So, stick to that, and be careful with phrases like "nonconstructive". And first read a warning, before you post it; "vandalism" is a heavy offense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think adding "openly gay" on a BLP article without a reference isn't constructive. It wasn't for nothing that HG also considered it suspicious. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it sounded much better than "a lesbian", and I wanted to make a Wikipedia article look better. And maybe that bot considered it suspicious because a lot of people use "gay" as a derogatory term, I really hope it doesn't do the same thing every time someone adds the word "gay" to an article, because that would make Wikipedia a much bigger mess than I expected. 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) User talk:Narciso003
- Or it was perhaps because other editors had reverted the same thing before and hg might have a poor score for your username based on your earlier edits, that is a possibility. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it sounded much better than "a lesbian", and I wanted to make a Wikipedia article look better. And maybe that bot considered it suspicious because a lot of people use "gay" as a derogatory term, I really hope it doesn't do the same thing every time someone adds the word "gay" to an article, because that would make Wikipedia a much bigger mess than I expected. 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) User talk:Narciso003
- I think adding "openly gay" on a BLP article without a reference isn't constructive. It wasn't for nothing that HG also considered it suspicious. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Humour
For humour, try looking at B Janakiraman and its AfD discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Great! Still following me around. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, would you like to conduct a GA review on the article? Ssven2 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: sure, I am a Rajni fan myself! But my hands are full right now... you have nominated it recently, if its not picked up in a month or so (by that time I should also be done with other GARs) I will pick it up. I had a quick look and it is in good shape, nice work! --AmritasyaPutraT 16:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You ready now? Ssven2 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: I think that 'now' is with regards to Columbus! Right after these three I will pick it up! Meanwhile I will spend some time with Sanskrit. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Christopher Columbus failed
The article Christopher Columbus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Christopher Columbus for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: I guess that was a quick fail, could you leave your suggestions here or at that article talk page. Thanks! --AmritasyaPutraT 06:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Christopher Columbus/GA1. An automatic fail or "quick fail" would be more like failing an article without further commentary for things like having multiple completely unsourced sections, copyvios, excessive [citation needed] tags, "copyedit", "neutrality disputed", "refimprove" or other cleanup tags. This simply failed its nomination instead of quick failing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: wow, that is very detailed, I will work on that and try to nominated again in a month or so, Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Christopher Columbus/GA1. An automatic fail or "quick fail" would be more like failing an article without further commentary for things like having multiple completely unsourced sections, copyvios, excessive [citation needed] tags, "copyedit", "neutrality disputed", "refimprove" or other cleanup tags. This simply failed its nomination instead of quick failing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanskrit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Junagarh. 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) 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!!!
Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
GA Cup - Round 2
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)