User talk:Dona-Hue

Welcome!

Hello, Dona-Hue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurangzeb

Hi, this edit introduced a few problems. I've fixed most of them but have no idea what the Ayalon source is intended to be. Please can you clarify. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied those references from the article on Hinduism. Thanks for doing what you did. - Dona-Hue (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are responsible for knowing and applying all applicable Wikipedia policies in your edits. Failure to do so can lead to sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hinduism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know an experienced Wikipedian who explained the basics to me offline after which I started editing here. I will ask him for some advice. Thank you!-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hinduism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Please do not insert OR or other content if you cannot read the source, something you admitted on Talk:Hinduism. If you can not read or locate a source, please assume good faith for other editors, and do not make changes in any wikipedia article, without verifying reliable source(s) support what you add/change. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Caste system in India, 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just did that!-Dona-Hue (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this about 🤔? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajirao1007 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the articles!

Please read the articles before trying to edit them. In this edit, you have added a sentence to a paragraph, which starts with the very piece of information you have added! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so can I use a different source and restore that sentence?-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required for editing Wikipedia. If you are unable to figure out what you can or cannot do, I suggest you restrict yourself to making small corrections where needed, and watch other experienced editors so that you can learn what needs to be done. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use article talk page

Before adding your changes to Atheism again, please discuss them on the talk page. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire Map

The map being used is wrong. The Maratha's reached Peshawar at their height and extracted Chauth(tribute) from Sindh, and Hyderabad. Mysore was not as large of a kingdom until Tipu Sultan Bajirao1007 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine this discussion to the Talk page of the Maratha Empire article!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

It appears that you've been warned many many times in the past, yet you continue to do dubious edits such as this and like this with dubious edit summaries at best. If this continues, then you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those edits was certainly due to Hindu resistance and not due to Hindu-Muslim wars. Can you restore that please? I also fail to see what is wrong with this edit and this edit! —Dona-Hue (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Indus River is already there, and what is the point of the other edit, the timing is self-evident, and then none of that was "correcting grammar", in fact your "correcting grammar" edits only made it worse. —SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let us skip the link to the Indus River, but mentioning it in that sentence with this edit is important. For the other edits, the "correcting the grammar" may have been inappropriate, but the sentence made better sense after my edit!—Dona-Hue (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: If I use a good source to show that India became independent in 1947, can I restore this edit? What is wrong with this edit, this edit and this edit?—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff:, I've just reverted this set of edits. Among other things, it added the sentence "it is considered blasphemous to use other names for Allah - even the term God is not allowed" using this as a source. That's the Encyclopedia of Islam, and it clearly says "S̲h̲irk..., a term from the religious vocabulary, of Ḳurʾānic origin, which signifies the act of “associating” with God". How, Dona-Hue, do you interpret that as meaning using the word "God" is blasphemous? Is the Encylopedia of Islam blasphemous? Its page on "Allah"[1] defines Allah as "God the Unique one, the Creator and Lord of the Judgment, polarizes the thought of Islam; He is the sole reason for its existence." And this is copyvio. And probably violating NPOV as it doesn't mention that

"Najeeb Jung, vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia university, told CNN-IBN that the police was giving excuses of backroom investigation, while it was only a matter of two-minutes to investigate since the "TV cutout" was available for everybody to see and contents of speech were available on Wikipedia for everybody to read.^[1] Jung said that the speech incited incendiary feelings between two communities of an extremely serious nature, and refused to believe Owaisi was ill."

(from Akbaruddin Owaisi) Also overblown, we don't need loads of details, people can read his article.

References

^ Najeeb Jung, Abid Khan (3 January 2013). 10 days later, Congress demands action against MIM's Owaisi for hate speech (TV News Channel). CNN IBN. Retrieved 3 January 2012.

Doug Weller talk 16:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Dona-Hue, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Anti-Hindu sentiment have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

It has become increasingly clear that you are just an agenda editor here doing nothing other than pushing your POV. THe only other explanation is that you don't understand what an encyclopaedia is. Either way, you are being a disruptive force here and your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have provided references for all my edits!—Dona-Hue (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Crawford88 has put back this matter and feels it is fine!—Dona-Hue (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked if that edit can be used in the article on the Marathas and Maratha Empire on the respective talk pages!—Dona-Hue (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra

I have reverted your edit on Mantra because it violates several wikipedia guidelines/policies (such as WP:BURDEN, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:LEAD). The content was copy-pasted from a citizendium article which states "The content on this page originated on Wikipedia". You have been warned by Spaceman that your editing privileges will be revoked if you continue with disruptive editing. JimRenge (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I did not see that sentence in any wikipedia article, so I paraphrased it and put it in the Mantra article, using the citizendium article as a reference (just like I've used the Encyclopedia Britannica elsewhere). Is there any way that we can use that sentence in that Mantra article?—Dona-Hue (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the citizendium article [2] is not a reliable source. Please see identifying reliable sources and WP:USERGENERATED for more information. JimRenge (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017: blocked

Hi, Dona-Hue. You have received some very serious criticism on this page, and your replies have shown little understanding of the issues. The community has a lot of patience with new users, but if they don't improve their understanding of how Wikipedia works, they will eventually become a net negative to the project. Your editing has remained tendentious, and you don't seem to benefit from explanations, such as, just above, that you must not copy text from a source that has in its turn copied a Wikipedia article (Citicendium). That's just one example out of many. I'm sure you are editing Wikipedia in good faith, but sadly your editing has become a drain on our main resource (which is the time and enthusiasm of other contributors). I have blocked you indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. I hope you find other places on the internet where you can contribute usefully. Are you familiar with Simple Wikipedia?

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 03:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

[1] Najeeb Jung, Abid Khan (3 January 2013). 10 days later, Congress demands action against MIM's Owaisi for hate speech (TV News Channel). CNN IBN. Retrieved 3 January 2012.

[1]