User talk:Aravindan24233

Welcome!

Hello, Aravindan24233, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bully Dog

Hi, I just reverted some changes you made at Bully Dog. It might be a good idea to discuss the changes you want to make at the talk page. The first revert I made was because there was some very strange characters (little triangles) appearing in your text, which looked like you might have copied and pasted it from a website, and you were adding external links to the references section; in the last revert, you replaced a section of sourced content with some different content that was had no citations at all. Before making any more changes, please read through the links that Drmies gave you in his welcome message above, and make sure that you are using reliable sources to support your assertions. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Bully Dog. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked

Even though I have reliable source you are deleting my material where as what is the source for what you have posted for bully dogs? This is biased and trying to suppress another person's source. Aravindan24233 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are deleting sourced content, and replacing it with your own, I cannot agree with you that what I have done is 'suppressing another person's source'. Have you read the links that Drmies gave you in his welcome message, and the link that I left above (reliable sourcing)? Any assertions that you make need to be supported by citations, that you insert using the 'Cite' tool on the editing page - you don't just put some external links into the references section, and leave readers to work it out for themselves. If your sources disagree with the sources already in the article, you don't just delete the other stuff without explaining what you're doing - you could note that sources disagree on the matter, or you could start a discussion on the talk page to talk to other editors about what the sources say, and try to reach a consensus about what the article should say. I'm not biased (I had never heard of this breed of dog until today), I'm just trying to ensure that our articles are properly sourced, and that sourced material is not deleted without discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'd draw your attention to the bold - revert - discuss cycle, and our policies on edit warring, particularly the section on WP:3RR. You need to discuss these changes on the article talk page, not just keep trying to push them through, or you risk your account being blocked. Again, I'm not trying to frustrate you here, and I thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia - I just want to make sure that we go through the proper processes, and create verifiable, sourced content. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you reinstated your edits again, and that they were reverted by another editor. Please note that you have now exceeded WP:3RR; please also note that the source you cited is WP:UGC, which would not be considered reliable. If you reinstate your changes again without discussion on the talkpage to arrive at consensus, I will report you for edit warring, which may result in your account being blocked. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 20:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

This is cyber bullying and you yourself have no source and you are rejecting my source! Aravindan24233 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is bullying you. I have said nothing about you as a person, I am simply talking about your edits. I have been trying to tell you how we go about editing constructively and collaboratively on Wikipedia. You have been deleting content that is sourced to the Times of India, and replacing it with content that is sourced to a Facebook page. The Times of India is not an ideal source for this content, since it's a general newspaper rather than an academic book about the history of the breed, but it's better than the source you have cited.

I ask you again - have you read through the links that you have been provided with? If you continue trying to push through your changes, without learning about our policies and guidelines, then you will run into conflict and may get blocked. Start a conversation with other editors on the article talk page, and see if you can reach a consensus about what the article should say. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to be fitting in with Wikipedia

Hi, Aravindan 24233. I have observed your behavior in the past 24 hours. You have come up against a lot of opposition to your method of editing. Perhaps you read that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. That is a true statement, but what you seem not to realize is that there is a myriad of rules you have to follow as a Wikipedia editor. These rules came about directly as a result of the chaos that ensued when everyone who wished to contribute to Wikipedia decided to "have at it", in the early days of Wikipedia. There are rules on top of rules, on top of rules, all underlain by the principle that we are all here to make an encyclopedia. As I observe your behavior, you seem to be an advocate for Indian supremacy in the realm of mastiff dogs, rather than a person who loves knowledge. When you edit improperly and are reprimanded, you go ahead and repeat the bad behavior. Most people are not as lucky as you. You really ought to have a series of sequential warnings, culminating in a threat to block your account, because your misbehavior is so extreme. You blanked a lot of material in one edit, which makes you a Wikkpedia vandal, subject to being reported to the Administrator intervention against vandalism group and blocked. If I were you, I'd think twice about being a Wikipedia editor.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]