User talk:Excipient0

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Anti-Pakistan sentiment has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Anti-Pakistan sentiment was changed by Excipient0 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912615 on 2015-05-10T16:48:02+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Max Semenik (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Pakistan sentiment with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Amaury (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Max Semenik (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-India sentiment

Dear Excipient0, Regarding this edit [1], Wikipedia documents what WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources have written about a subject. In this case, when we are discussing Pakistanis' sentiments towards India, we cannot write our own opinions about these sentiments, but rather what the scholars and commentators say about them. Please familiarise yourself with the policies on reliable sources and the idea of primary and secondary sources. In this case, a source that expresses a particular sentiment is a primary source. A source that comments on a whole range of such sentiments in a generic way is a secondary souce. Please do not reinstate that edit until you understand these policies. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that any legitimate criticisms that Pakistanis might have against India do not constitute "Anti-India sentiment," only the sentiments that are considered unreasonable or biased by third-party sources. It is ok to mention a few such issues to bring some balance to that section. But documenting them is not the main purpose of this section. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I cannot take your arguments seriously as your clearly a biased editor who plays one side and ignores the other taking a look at the Indian pov on the anti-Pakistan sentiment article reinforces this. Excipient0 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I reverted your edit since it was against policy, and you re-reverted me. Therefore, the two of us required to discuss the issue. When an editor cites policy, you are required to check the policy and adhere to it. Failure to do so constitutes disruptive editing. Whether you think I am biased or not is not relevant. That having said, I should also mention to you that this article was on my watch list, the other article wasn't. Now that you have pointed out problems in both the articles, I will look into them. Other editors are also doing so. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Edit War

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Anti-Pakistan sentiment article. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]