User talk:Reema wiki

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to California textbook controversy over Hindu history, 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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Wikipedia is done by WP:CONSENSUS. Please use the talk page to discuss the issues you are concerned about and achieve consensus for your changes. You cannot keep reinstating edits that have been rejected by other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at California textbook controversy over Hindu history. 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. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add racist text and violate WP:NPOV, as you did at California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at California textbook controversy over Hindu 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Reema wiki, please don't put your opinions into articles, as you did here. Use talkpages to discuss edits if they are reverted, and please do use informative edit summaries. Your edit summaries appear in the history of the page, as here, and are supposed to give a brief reason for your edit. Please also, if you're reverted, consult the history to see other people's reasons. You see how Kautilya3 reverted 10 edits of yours with the summary "Unexplained POV edits; please use the talk page to raise your concerns and achieve consensus"? Instead of doing that, you reverted back a mere minute later. That is completely unacceptable. I'm glad to see you edited the talkpage a little later, but that was the wrong chronology. And, of course, you still don't have consensus on the talkpage for your edits. You appear to be a new editor; please listen to the good advice you get from experienced editors such as Joshua Jonathan. Before you inquire about my "standing" to be telling you this, I'm an administrator. But all experienced editors are entitled and indeed encouraged to warn and advise you, for instance to tell you things such as "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add racist text and violate WP:NPOV" (which is perfectly true). If you continue edit warring and/or inserting racist commentary in the article, you will be blocked. As for editors "ganging up on you", as you say on the talkpage, the fact that you're edit warring with several editors is hardly in your favour. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, can you please read my edit to the section "Hindu American Foundation case" and compare it to what it was previously, and tell me truly without going into the bureaucracy of how to edit WP articles, whether my editing work is superior and more informative or not? I want an objective opinion and not an opinion marred by how I did not follow the protocol. The fact that I am contributing to WP to help improve the content with properly referenced facts is somehow overlooked by all of you. Would you not agree that the article was heavily biased towards one particular opinion? Would you think you were done justice by reading it in its original form? I came to this page as a reader and was horrified by how one-sided it was. So I spent about 1.5 hours of my personal time looking up sources and adding facts, not opinions to it, so that people can "arrive at" a more balanced perspective of the lawsuits. Reema (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally kindly know that if I find myself unfairly blocked by you or any other administrator, I know my WP rights, and I would look for mediation. I am not going to give up my edits to this supremely important article. I am very much willing to work with the other editors so long as they guide me "constructively" on how I can add more information to that page - which otherwise presented only opinions and facts related to one side of the story - in order to make it more balanced and provide a fair representation to both sides of the litigation. You should know that as an administrator that most of humanity relies on WP to get their "facts", hence, I am not going to give editing this page up. Now, please debate with me on the merits of my edits and not on the merits of bureaucracy. Reema (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have so far been highly opinionated. Changing the header "CAPEEM case" into "CAPEEM Case - Showcases the Interference of Christian Groups and Church to Denigrate Hinduism in Californian Textbooks" isn't to be "adding facts, not opinions". On the contrary, it simply adds your personal conclusion and opinion to a previously neutral header. And changing "Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations" to "Opposition of White Indologists and Church Affiliated Groups to the proposed edits of Hindu foundations" is actually adding racist commentary. Are you seriously suggesting the 47 signatories of the letter to the California Board of Education were all white and/or Church affiliated? Or, for that matter, that the members of the Dalit Freedom Network were? That would be untrue, besides which, their skin colour is absolutely no business of yours or Wikipedia's. Wikipedia articles don't discuss people's ethnicity or skin colour unless it's relevant to the matter in hand, which is not the case here. Removing the word "White" here is a step in the right direction, even if insufficient, and done truculently.[1] I hope it's a sign you are now willing to discuss your suggested edits constructively on the talkpage. But please note that if you don't get consensus there for your preferred version, you still won't get to add it. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, you should not discuss history with me because as you should know everyone has their own version of history. I am not here to consolidate and harmonize the various historical versions. I have my side of the story according to which, yes, Dalit Freedom Network is absolutely affiliated with anti Hindu organizations. Now if you don't like hearing that you should not have brought the point up in the first place. You should act as an admin and not a historian. Reema (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice

Hi Reema, a bit of advice. When you make an edit and it gets reverted (a common thing, when we are beginners), you discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus. There are no ifs and buts about it. You might think your edit is an improvement. But the other editors may not. There is no reason for your view to prevail over the others. You seem to be an intelligent person. Please read WP:BRD and digest it. See you at the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaultilya, thanks for your suggestion. I am willing to work with you (and others) on the talk page. However, you must understand that the current version of this page is absolutely unacceptable simply because it is biased given that it does not present *all* points of views. It seems that whoever has worked on it has chosen to go with *only* the anti-Hindu version of it. Hope you'd understand what is driving me to spend so much of my personal time on this Reema (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We all spend our personal time, Reema. So does Bishonen.

Wikipedia does not aim to present all points of view. (We are not a television station.) We present all points of view expressed in reliable sources. That is an important difference. And, you need to click on that link to understand what is meant by a reliable source. Without bringing in reliable sources, you cannot make any headway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about others. But "my" time is very important to me, and I don't casually engage in confrontations unless I feel that the situation is terribly wrong as in this page. So enough said. Now let's get to work to change the status quo. My sources are "reliable" in that they're either court published documents or articles published by online news Websites. And, FYI, I have been through the WP:BRD. And, I now feel great about what I did seeing how Wikipedia encourages "bold" editing. Reema (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the "bold" part is a bit of a lie, I think. It only works if you have enough of a thick skin to see your edits get reverted. Most of us don't. In any case, the "bold edit" is only the first step. The hard work comes later.

The work to be done is on the article's talk page, where I already asked you what your concerns are. So you need to explain that. You have said of course that you think the article is "anti-Hindu". But how? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]