User talk:Pk100000000000

February 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tarek Fatah, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tarek Fatah. 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. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Tarek Fatah. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Also, be advised that with certain topics, such as relations between India and Pakistan broadly construed, edits are subject to extra scrutiny. Thus, you really need to get support for your changes at the article's talk page—and as the editor initiating the change, you need to get the support; it's not the other editor's burden to get support to restore the status quo. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pk100000000000 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pk100000000000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Mistake made - want to undo bias

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia and apologise for not knowing about edit warring. I will avoid this in the future, I didn't really understand the process and I noticed someone said I was a sock for someone else, I'm not. I understand this is a collaborative project and want to make sure I don't get into an edit war again, so I'm reading up on ways to get third party mediation in the future. That being said, the article I was attempting to edit (albeit poorly) on Tarek Fatah, is, in my view, quite biased. It claims he is a secular activist who has been criticised mainly by right-wing Islamists. However, Fatah himself regularly makes right-wing and far-right comments and has been regularly criticised by left-leaning media for hateful comments, and I was attempting to give the other side on this. My sources were apparently not up to scratch. I apologise for that too. I intend on editing the article to include very reputable sources, including:

A Times of India article (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/why-hindutvas-foreign-born-cheerleaders-are-so-popular/articleshow/58085790.cms)

A piece by the deputy editor of Huffpost India (http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/04/22/tarek-fatah_n_9755366.html)

An investigative report by Dawn, Pakistan's most read English newspaper (https://www.dawn.com/news/1303846)

Tweets by Fatah (who has a verified account) himself that claim the Kaaba was a Hindu temple etc.

How can I do so without getting into an edit war with Adamgerber80 and if that happens, how can I take my issue to Dispute Resolution? Can I have my edits viewed and approved by a/more than one moderator in advance? Thanks for your help, and sorry once again for being ignorant and kind of stupid about the rules and logic behind Wikipedia.

Please see WP:EDITWAR. If your edits are reverted, you need to achieve consensus on the article's talk page. The important thing is, if you can't get a consensus of the other users, you can't make your change. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do if the user (Adamgerber80) undoing the edits is approaching the issue in a biased perspective? Adamgerber80 seems to think my sources are opinion pieces but much of the article is itself based on opinion pieces and I'd like to reference Fatah's own statements via Twitter. Can I use the Request for Comment feature? Thanks

This is all answered in WP:EDITWAR (in particular, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) and WP:RS. Note that statements like, "Adam Gerber is clearly a Hindu nationalist or supporter trying to subvert this page to suit his agenda" are likely to get you blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks here. --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]