User talk:NeiiNine

March 2013

Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rajput seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Hi. The edits you made to Rajput included comments such as "brilliantly winning almost every battle" and "making the British Indian army perhaps the most redoubtable army of the 1800's". Editorial commentary like that, written in Wikipedia's voice, is prohibited by Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy, so please have a read of that.

You also changed "They claim to be descendants of ruling Hindu warrior classes of North India" to "They are the descendants of ruling Hindu warrior classes of North India", when the provided source is only strong enough to support the former. Claiming more than the quoted sources support is prohibited by Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy - please click on that link and have a read of that too.

Finally, when your changes are contested and reverted, what you must then do is discuss them on the article talk page (at Talk:Rajput) and try to gain a consensus in support of your version - please see WP:BRD, which explains the process. You must not edit war to force your changes in, or you could be blocked from editing - please have a read of Wikipedia's Edit Warring policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are continuing the edit war. I won't revert you further, but I'm pretty sure someone else will. Please listen to what you are being told (by someone with considerably more experience than you of the Wikipedia way of doing things), and adjust your behaviour accordingly - I would hate to see you blocked from editing for edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone else has reverted you, as I predicted they would. Please listen to what you are being told about proper sourcing and maintaining a neutral point of view. And please discuss the changes you wish to make on the article talk page, and STOP the edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Rajput#Recent changes - please make your case there before you make any further changes to the article, and try to get a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read WP:3RR, as the way you are continuing to edit war *will* get you blocked. You are supposed to *stop* making your contested changes while the discussion is in progress, not carry on making them at the same time. What you should do is propose each individual change separately at Talk:Rajput, explain your sources, and then *wait* for a discussion to develop and arrive at a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who are the people who are supposed to reach a consensus? Non historians? I have referred what I wrote and they can go and verify. It is unfair that no action is done on those who plainly delete pasts well written and referred articles while in my case, despite proper referencing, I need to await 'consensus' from non-experts. Please check my reference.

Anybody can take part in the discussion and help achieve consensus - that's the way Wikipedia works. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput introduction

Hi NeiiNine, I would like to ask you two questions regarding the second paragraph of the introductory section:

I was having trouble understanding the following statement: "winning almost every battle, except for one severe defeat in Afganistan, a place they had otherwise mastered in battle". How exactly was that "otherwise" if they were, as you write severely defeated?
You wrote that the majority of the British Indian soldiers were Rajputs from eastern India. This appears to be in contradiction to the first paragraph's description of geographical distribution of rajputs: "western, central, northern India and some parts of Pakistan" - precisely excluding eastern India. Are these "different" Rajputs?

Hi its me NeiiNine Rajputs are in large numbers in the east of India aswell, being originally from (mostly) Rajastan and having moved there much later in their history. Unfortunately, despite my proper references, they have removed my initial post because one particular Wikipedian who considers himself an expert (although he is not) claimed the acclaimed historian from whom I had referenced (Neil Ferfuson) as being non an expert in miltary history. This wikipedian is controlling this article refuting valid references at his will which is very unfair. but its true, all I wrote can be found in the works of a multiude of historians and I am sure in the military reports (now public) of the east Indian armed forces and the later British Indian army.

Kmiki87 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Phil Mason, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove references to material without discussion. TeaDrinker (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2013

The word prominent WAS personal. I removed PERSONAL analysis OF OTHER PEOPLE not vice versa.