User talk:A2c1

A2c1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A2c1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--A2c1 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't erase information without verifying

Dear unknown user, it appears that you don't have sufficient information on the subject of the article. I had already put in references. If you think that the United Nations guidelines are so called opinions, you should go to the UN and tell them that. I have added Child related issues which have been properly referenced. Unless you are knowledgeable on the subject matter, please don't delete the information added to the article. My editing were continuing based on certain suggestions which were already provided. I understand that you have more knowledge on how to interfere or delete articles. probably will not do so. Your issue is that your comments seem more of a personal attack & with the excuse of original research or point of view. Please contribute constructively. Please don't violate freedom to upload relevant information. This technique of yours has been applied in many forums where negativity is there. However please don't violate freedom of information on wiki.

If you have any specific doubts, please leave your comments on the talk box.

In order to put information on this article, one also requires some knowledge base. Please don't make personal attacks. Also I will appreciate if you could undo the erasing of the additions to the article, by using undo button, so that any constructive information placed on thsi article doesn't become a personal tug of war or ego issues. Thank You very much--A2c1 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with reversions?

I noticed you seem to be editing back in parts of a page that were previously reverted. The reason for these reversions is in the Edit Summary, and the most recent one was for not adhering to a neutral point of view. This means that it is not up to you to interpret the articles, only insert facts and improve the article overall. Criticisms of your own mind and your versions of explanations do not count as factual or an improvement. If you need more help, consider asking on the Wikipedia:Teahouse! WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Unknown User is spamming & deleting the article --A2c1 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Yes, there is an unknown user who has been deleting additions to the article. I have put in links and references in my additions. Destroying such a content does not keep information, rather it destroys information. have taken a lot of effort to reference the links as well as issues & problems. This article it appears was made simply to provide limited information on the Hindu Marriage Act. The real issues have not been linked, or informed in the wikipedia article. The links & the so called "point of view", the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 has stated, the user is clearly not knowledgeable enough of the act on which this article has been put up in wikipedia. My purpose is to add information to this article. It appears that my inputs seem tro go against his "individual point of view". None of the information that was painstakingly linked has been kept, this user has completely deleted the entire versions.[reply]

The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harsimaja may have some points which I have understood & was editing that. During my editing, the other user completel;y deleted my inputs to the article. Editing changes are welcome, but the entire article that has been so called reverted back to is an incomplete article & requires a lot of additions.

Thank You very much--A2c1 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that it's not up to you to describe problems, criticisms, etc. Your point of view on the article and what it means to you isn't what Wikipedia looks for. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 06:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--A2c1 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your suggestions. Yes I was editing the article based on suggestions provided by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harsimaja on similar lines. I do understand that the language needed modifications & some more references were required, which was being put in by me I accept the suggestions by this user. However any thing that I have quoted is not my original reseach. Its based on collection of numerous information done by various people. However the article as of now is incomplete without proper references. How to request the unknown user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 to stop deleting data & information & spamming on the article?

There is no way to stop them because they did nothing wrong. You need to properly cite sources as well maintain a neutral point of view. If your edits are repeatedly reverted, maybe it isn't a good idea to keep adding them back in with almost no improvement based on the feedback given to you in the edit summary. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 06:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--A2c1 (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Thank You for your suggestions. Let me see what I can do for it, since I had already put many links & references.[reply]

However I am not too sure about the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 One needs to have some basic knowledge on subject of the article for which links are being referenced or which judgements are being quoted. My additions could have been fine tuned or even edited. But erasing the data & information with personal remarks does not speak highly about such a user. Complying to Wiki code is a good matter, however erasing the additions which had a lot of information is probably not a correct way to do things.
In any case this article itself is a point of view, which is why I was trying to put forward the correct information with references including the united nations declarations on child rights, the traditional family systems, various supreme court judgements, if they are not relevant references & they are points of view then this user should instead request the UN to change its stand on promotion of Rights of Children & let child rights be violated. This user has without reading anything, has blindly erased data with personal remarks. I do have serious issue with this user's complete deletion of my additions, if he had any issues with specific references, this user could have easily posted there.

But thank you so much for your suggestions. Let me see how well I can do about it and relook at the references that I had already put in.

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. only (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2020 (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).

A2c1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Respected Admin, this particular page requires many more information addition. I am a first time user. I had provided sufficient links and references to my additions. However a particular user has been constantly deleting my complete entries. This article is under C category. All my entries have references which are available on the public domain. also I had provided links tothe UNCRC, Wikipedia articles, etc. Its highly possible that the particular user who kept on deleting my additions does not have the time or patience to go through ALL my entries. If there were certain entries that required editing, I am sure any one who is good at editing, without tampering with the content of information could have done it. The disruptive editing happens because this user has been deleting/ undoing my complete entries. Also by making personal comments like "unhelpful entries, or "You will be blocked". I will request you to kindly ensure that my entries are reverted back, yes with editing. If my editing or language "appears" to be faulty, then I am sure that it can be easily be corrected by just typing things out. None of my entries are my point of view since I had already put in references. A simple undo with editing / fine tuning I am sure will suffice in the time period that I am being blocked. I have a simple suggestion. Let my additions be reverted back, yes with editing. Let somebody else do the editing with the references & content I have provided, let me also take a call on that later. sincerely Yours, Thank You Very Much. only (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were essentially unsalvageable and had no place in an encyclopedia. That you think your edits were not in violation of WP:NPOV is deeply, deeply concerning because they clearly were, along with WP:NOR. I endorse this one week block; it'll give you time to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I warn you, if you continue like this once your block expires, the next one will be indefinite. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2020 (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.

--A2c1 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) I have been using wiki for information for a long time, I am aware of the Point of View concept & neutrality concept. I have not denied that as a first time user, my language may have been erroneous. Which is why I have requested that the references & data not be deleted at the same time someone else could use those references and add to this page. Neither I am asking the admin to unblock me (please read my original post). but be informed that the article is incomplete since most sections mentioned in the article are actually not used in practice. Except for a few portions (less than 25% of the page) most of the other information is not used in real world... The question is of content & quality of information on this page.. Thank You.[reply]

This is not an appeal to unblock.

Have a good day --A2c1 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--A2c1 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Just Saw this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Could someone please help me edit the page I was providing inputs in?[reply]

--A2c1 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]