User talk:Neptunion
Wikistalking
[edit]IP 128.83.131.122 -
OrgName: University of Texas at Austin OrgID: UTAA Address: ITS - Telecommunications and Networking Address: 1 University Station, C2900 City: Austin StateProv: TX PostalCode: 78705 Country: US
NetRange: 128.83.0.0 - 128.83.255.255 CIDR: 128.83.0.0/16 NetName: UTAUSTIN NetHandle: NET-128-83-0-0-1 Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: CHISOS.OTS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: CHINATI.OTS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: CS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: DNS2.CSO.UIUC.EDU NameServer: MARIANAS.ITS.UTEXAS.EDU Comment: RegDate: Updated: 2005-04-19
OrgTechHandle: ZU83-ARIN OrgTechName: Network Operations Center OrgTechPhone: +1-512-471-6387 OrgTechEmail: net-tech@its.utexas.edu
- ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-02-06 19:10
- Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
3RR
[edit]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Rama's arrow 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ram, You left a warning on my page when clearly a group of editors are engaged in nothing more than reverting my edits, on strange grounds.Do I not have any freedom to contribute here.Neptunion 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since you've only been here a week, I'll assume you aren't aware of how the three revert rule works. Unless you are reverting vandalism (which you were not doing; content disputes are not vandalism), if you revert the same article to the same state more than three times in a twenty four hour period, you will be blocked for 24 hours, regardless of the content of those reversions. It's a hard and fast rule that is applied pretty mercilessly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Better read our definition of vandalism. You're in a content dispute. That's not vandalism. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed mine is a good faith edit while those editors have knowingly subverted the articles.Please don't be judgemental before reading the edits and going an inch deeper Neptunion 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're still unclear as to the differences between good faith edits and vandalism. For one, good faith edits are those which can be rationally explained by the editor making the change; his reasons may be falsely held beliefs, or even patently demonstrable as outright falsehoods, but teh edit was made in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. A vandalous edit would be soemthing in which vulgarity is added, information is randomly removed (this is often referred to as 'blanking', when applied to a large quantity of text), or in which malicious changes are made. Seen in this light, redirecting Hindu fundamentalism to the larger article on Religious Fundamentalism, instead of one of the Right-Wing groups in India would be a Good Faith edit, especially since directly tying only ONE group in India to Hindu Fundamentalism makes numerous fallacious constructs, including:
- Ignoring any and all other right-wing indian groups IN India
- Ignoring any and all other Hindu Fundamentalist groups outside India
- Suggesting that the agenda of the group it linked to was ONLY Hinduism in it's reactionary ways, and not nationalistic or possessed of any other agendas.
- As such, the edit in question is CLEARLY a Good Faith edit. Further reversions will almost certainly result in administrator intervention being unkind to you, which no one finds to be the optimal solution. I recommend that you go find somethign else to do for a few hours, cool off, then come back to Wikipedia, and try to see the recent edits in a better light, by assuming Good Faith and looking for better ways to improve these, and related, topics. Engaging in an edit war, however, will serve only to make other editors dig their heels in. I will be reposting the 'arguments' for the edits on the AN/I page as well. Thank You. ThuranX 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're still unclear as to the differences between good faith edits and vandalism. For one, good faith edits are those which can be rationally explained by the editor making the change; his reasons may be falsely held beliefs, or even patently demonstrable as outright falsehoods, but teh edit was made in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. A vandalous edit would be soemthing in which vulgarity is added, information is randomly removed (this is often referred to as 'blanking', when applied to a large quantity of text), or in which malicious changes are made. Seen in this light, redirecting Hindu fundamentalism to the larger article on Religious Fundamentalism, instead of one of the Right-Wing groups in India would be a Good Faith edit, especially since directly tying only ONE group in India to Hindu Fundamentalism makes numerous fallacious constructs, including:
- Indeed mine is a good faith edit while those editors have knowingly subverted the articles.Please don't be judgemental before reading the edits and going an inch deeper Neptunion 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the simplified ruleset. There are thousands of ways to get help on Wikipedia, and I personally recommend the Wikipedia:Boot_Camp, where you can even chat online with fellow Wikipedians willing to help! In addition, Wikipedia also has thousands of pages dedicated to the use of Wikipedia, for example, if you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. Also, feel free to post them on my user talk page - I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
Help
[edit]Remember, the links above are always good, but if you still need help try these:
- Wikipedia:Help - here you'll search for an article dedicated to what you need.
- Village Pump - here you can post questions.
- Reference Desk - also where you find articles
- Tutorial - a nice tutorial for beginners
- Policy Library - a overview of Wikipedia Policies
- Wp:cheatsheet - A great look at the language.
Additional tips
[edit]Here are some extra tips to help you get around in Wikipedia:
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. If your keyboard doesn't have tildes (or for whatever reason) you can also click the
button on the bar above the editing section. - You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
- If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
Current open tasks
[edit]You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Good luck. JChap2007 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I read your messages on the administrator's noticeboard (disclosure: not an admin). You may want to click around some of the links above. In addition, you may want to read the useful essay on tendentious editing. If you want more eyes to offset a group of editors you think is trying to violate WP:NPOV, you may want to list the disputed articles on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. I hope this has been helpful. JChap2007 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)