User talk:CamillRose

Welcome!

Hi CamillRose! I noticed your contributions to 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots, you may be blocked from editing. Will you PLEASE stop reverting, particularly since a. your edits are simply not properly formatted and b. the content you are adding is extraneous, and reverted by three editors now. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. Sea Cow (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring. I am adding historical details along with citation just as the article is asking for. The other people are edit warring. Block them. Why are they not being blocked although they continually keep removing content I post. CamillRose (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring, against the judgment of four editors. What you are doing, and what you are describing, is the exact definition of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been wrongfully blocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I’ve been wrongfully blocked. The other editors are vandalizing the content of the page, repeating removing historically valid and evidenced information while leaving biased and unconfirmed information that is lacking citation. They are also engaging in edit warring. My editing, on the other hand, is not edit warring as stated on Wikipedia, which says: “Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.” The other editors are leaving negative unsourced content in the article which requires removal. In addition, the changes I am making are good-faith changes, which is not considered vandalism. CamillRose (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The article in question is not a biography of a living person, so that exemption from the edit-warring policy does not apply. Even if it did, you left out the part that says If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. The other editors are not vandalizing; they just disagree with you. On Wikipedia, vandalism implies actual malice; the four other editors you were in conflict with are not malicious, even if you disagree that their edits are helpful. You need to discuss this at the talk page, rather than edit-warring to force your own ideas in. In short: WP:NOTTHEM. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:42, 1 July 2022 (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.

I am not edit warring, I am new to Wikipedia while the others are more experienced. I did include explanation in summaries as well as on the talk page. My content is exactly what the 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya Riots page is asking for: “ This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2018)” I added factual information about the incident along with citations. But the other editors reverted to the original article which doesn’t have citation to prove their claims. If Wikipedia allows people to write anything about some incident without caring about whether it is true or not and without giving references to evidence their claims, that makes Wikipedia a scam platform. The information in the 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya Riots is blatantly incorrect and historically inaccurate. It is false and libelous toward Muslims who have been misrepresented and debased. I have given evidence to show that the real perpetrators of the atrocities preceding the 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya Riots were Ahmadiyya and the victims were unarmed Muslim students who were passing through Ahmadiyya city (Rabwa). History doesn’t change no matter how much someone or some group tries to hide it. It manifests itself eventually. The evidence is there, in newspapers and eyewitness accounts. If you look, you will find it. CamillRose (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to stop. This is a collaborative project. Four editors disagreed with you and yet you continued cause you know best, right? OK--so again, that is the very definition of edit warring. You can say a thousand times that you are right but it doesn't change the fact that your edits didn't find consensus. It's really that simple--and now you're just wasting our time. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]