Jump to content

User talk:Pbeditwiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Pbeditwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

April 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Aryan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz It wasn't my intention to add my personal point of view and neither did I use personal analysis.
I beg to differ on the edits to Aryan that have been undone by you. Here are my arguments in favor of my edits that I had originally made:
  1. The misappropriation paragraph that I included is supported by published literary evidence and it's not personal analysis. The distinction 'between Aryan and un-Aryan is a cultural rather than a racial difference' is from Sri Aurobindo's book which he wrote between August 1914 and 1920 (book is The Secret of Veda). Also the second literary evidence is from contemporary book The Song of God published in 2013 by prominent public speaker and author Swami Mukundananda. In both cases they point out that Aryan is not a ethnoracial concept. It is important to note that such misconceptions and misinformation has been pointed out by prominent authors and must be included in the article on Aryan.
  2. Secondly as to the criticism that I've included personal analysis, I would take an example where personal views have been inserted in another article on Wikipedia. I was going through the article on Love Jihad. And I see that a sentence is there which states "The conspiracy theory is noted for its similarities to the antisemitic trope of Jewish world domination, as well as white nationalist conspiracy theories and Euro-American Islamophobia." However, this projection of anti-Semitic or white nationalist to the topic is making a broad generalization and the citations for this sentence are not related to the original topic at all. So it seems whoever wrote that sentence in this article on Love Jihad has added personal opinions/analysis. So by the same criteria you've used this sentence should also be removed.
If Wikipedia's aim is to provide a neutral point of view policy then why shouldn't all the published literary evidence be included in the article. As a reader I would like access to all published evidence that's available from any topic in Wikipedia. Unless you're implying that certain books are censored from citation? Please revert. Thank you. Pbeditwiki (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of Wikipedia users' personal opinions. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources, such as academic journals, say in an impartial tone. Wikipedia does not have a "voice"; it "reports" the "voices" of sources that meet certain criteria.
Aurobindo, Mukundananda, etc., are not scholars. Their books do not meet WP:RS; thus, cannot be used in Wikipedia.
Please read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLinuz Understood but you seem to suggest it's my personal opinions I've included. On what basis is it my personal opinion when I am quoting books published and available in public domain?
As for WP:RS I have checked the policy. It is said there that "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves". And in this case I'm not interpreting but quoting the exact material from the books. So the primary source can be used without any personal interpretation.
Please explain. Pbeditwiki (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it allows use of primary sources albeit with caution. So I don’t understand your objection. I will restore my edits. Pbeditwiki (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Hasan Nizami, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Re Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Re Packer&Tracker Thanks for the information. In that case I'll initiate a discussion that the paragraph be reinstated. I'll use talk page. Pbeditwiki (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Aryan. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the entire paragraph removed?
The book reference (by author Kundan Singh) is secondary source for Sri Aurbiondo's comments. Please explain why I cannot use public domain material available from Kundan Singh?
Also Rajiv Malhotra's article is from Huff Post which is a reliable source. Why I cannot use his article on Huff Post? Pbeditwiki (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Re Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Pbeditwiki! Your additions to Early Muslim conquests have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • 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. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

this edit removed a sentence with TWO refs, on the grounds that ONE was not RS, and when it is easy to find plenty more, including on JSTOR: GUPTA, CHARU. “Hindu Women, Muslim Men: Love Jihad and Conversions.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 51, 2009, pp. 13–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663907. Accessed 11 Apr. 2023.

Frankly this looks suspicious on your part. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire is a reliable source per many WP:RSN discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you know the difference, it's wire.in It is identified as opinion website. Then how can it be neutral? It violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Pbeditwiki (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression that we can’t use sources with an opinion. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug WellerThat's exactly what Wikipedia shouldn't be about i.e. opinions. It's an encyclopedia of verifiable secondarily source contents not anyone's personal opinions. Pbeditwiki (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources can have opinions. Have you read WP:NPOV? Doug Weller talk 20:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller then why is Huff Post not a reliable source as others are objecting to my citing an article from the website.
Huff Post is in the list of reliable sources. I see duplicate standards when it comes to POV. Pbeditwiki (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod please refrain from personal attacks Pbeditwiki (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@johnbod :There is blatant Hinduphobia by stating Hindutva advocates call it Islamophobic Conspiracy. How can you support Islamophobia by encouraging Hinduphobia? This sentence I edited violates WP: Neutral Point of View.

I find your support on Hinduphobic nature of this page very suspicious. Pbeditwiki (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that looks like a personal attack or at least failure to WP:AGF#show good faith Doug Weller talk 20:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that part for sure.
But my objections still hold. Pbeditwiki (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What objections? First of all, I don't know who has identified The Wire as "as opinion website". Secondly, the huffington post article was written by Rajiv Malhotra who is not a reliable source for a linguistic topic. Love Jihad is treated as a Islamophobic conspiracy theory. Hindutva is not Hinduism. I don't see anyone here who "support Islamophobia". Now if you made baseless charges of "hinduphobia" and "islamophobia" or treated reliable sources as unreliable then I will report you at WP:ANI. Capitals00 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce that, Rajiv Malhotra is described as "Malhotra promotes a Hindu nationalist view on Indic cultures. Malhotra has written prolifically in opposition to the western academic study of Indian culture and society, which he maintains denigrates the tradition and undermines the interests of India "by encouraging the paradigms that oppose its unity and integrity." So he is not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller - You're mixing two different things. I used Rajiv Malhotra and Kundan Singh as citations on Aryan article.
For a second I agree with you that Rajiv Malhotra's views are nationalistic but they are based on facts. But tell me why Kundan Singh's book where he cites another book by Sri Aurobindo was removed from my addition to Aryan article. Dr. Kundan Singh in his book states that Sri Aurobindo contested and refuted of this idea of Aryan as a race. His book is available for public citation here
I saw a bunch of users too eager and bully me to delete the above from the Aryan article. How is this not fit to be available (secondary source with citation) in an encyclopedia. Pbeditwiki (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 next time please don't make personal threats to me. If you want to report please go ahead. I'll make my case there.
BTW - The Wire's own website description on Wikipedia says "is an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website". Hence the objection.
BTW - Hindutva means (from Wikipedia's own definition available) - the state or quality of being Hindu. So please explain how is it different? Pbeditwiki (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbeditwiki I'm not going to look everything up, use the talk page to ask. We allow opinion but being a news and opinion website doesn't make it all opinion;. You weren't threatened by everyone, that's a routine and factual warning. Capitals00 can't block you. I can. Hindutva says"Hindutva ("Hindu-ness") is the predominant form of Hindu nationalism in India." And "The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of right-wing extremism, and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony. Some have also described Hindutva as a separatist ideology. Some analysts dispute the identification of Hindutva with fascism, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or "ethnic absolutism"." You've misrepresented the OED definition by leaving out the rest "Hindutva is "Originally: the state or quality of being Hindu; ‘Hinduness’. Now: an ideology advocating, or movement seeking to establish, the hegemony of Hindus and Hinduism within India; Hindu nationalism." Why did you do that? That sort of behavior can also lead to be banned from anything to do with India. You've been made aware of contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug WellerI really don't want this to become a long drawn ideology driven and opinionated balderdash here on this thread.
I'll post my views on Talk page.
I clearly see a pattern that "banning" is the instrument used to suppress views. Pbeditwiki (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that is nonsense. And shows a lack of good faith and knowledge of Wikipedia - you've only got a handful of edits, you should consider that maybe editors with hundreds of thousands of edits might know a bit more than you. Topic banning is a way of enforcing our policies and guidelines when all else fails. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller please refrain from making any more personal comments and calling my edits as nonsense. I see that you've a lots of edits but that doesn't mean my knowledge/views are inferior. Practice what you preach. Pbeditwiki (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not your edits, your claim about banning. If you wish to ignore my advice that’s your prerogative, but not a good idea. But I’ll give up trying to help you. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

[edit]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for one month from all pages and discussions related to India.

You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing. This edit, as well as this, plus a number of edits to Aryan are examples, especially seen together with your battleground attitude in the discussion above, where you attack and assume bad faith of all who disagree with you, as well as of experienced editors attempting to advise you about Wikipedia's rules and principles.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at #Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tÄlk 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Great Game has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbeditwiki&oldid=1157025198"