User talk:Rose$keel

Welcome!

Hello, Rose$keel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Sources for biography articles

Please read the reliable source guidelines prior to adding or changing personal information such as birthdates in articles. Many of the websites you have linked to do not meet the criteria for biographies and will therefore be reverted. Please feel free to post to the article talk page if you are unsure if a website is considered reliable. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Shraddha Kapoor before editing.

Hello, Your recently edits to Shraddha Kapoor, has been reverted by me. You had changed the birth date of a living people biography with outsource and unreliable sources proved. Please, join the talk page of Shraddha Kapoor here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shraddha_Kapoor#Edit_request_on_30_September_2013_2

Archana Ramdonee 11:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

~~Hi Rose$keel. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:~~

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.

Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.

Rollback should never be used to edit war.

If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.

Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rose$keel - I'm sorry if this has caused confusion, but your request for rollback was actually declined. The granting of rollback and the template above Noeliawere intended for another editor. Rollback should never be used in an edit war, and as you stated that you intended to use it to revert non-vandal edits, your request was denied. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I never said I intended to use them to revert non-vandal edits. I would never do that. I only said I intended to revert vandal edits. This is so disheartening. Everything I do in good faith is being questioned and my edits are being reverted by a fanatic user and to save my content I'm having to engage in a edit war which is highly distasteful to me. Above all, I'm being denied even rollback rights. Why can'tI be given a chance? If you think I am doing something against the rules of Wikipedia you can always remove the right.- Rose$keel (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rose$keel, you specifically noted that you believe the individuals reverting your edits are vandals and that you intended to use rollback "so that my hard research for reliable sources doesn't go waste when vandals change the edits I have made." It is likely that, as your are a newer editor, you are unaware of the Wikipedia definition of a vandal, but editors reverting your edits based on sourcing and content concerns are not vandals. If you have additional questions as to why your request was declined, you may wish to ask Beeblebrox as they were the declining admin. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a huge mess of this, and for that I truly apologize. However, it did seem clear from your request that you intended to use rollback in the content dispute you are currently involved in, and even if that were not the case your level of experience in finding and reverting actual vandalism is far too low and you would have been declined anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule is a bright line in an edit war situation

Your recent editing history at Shraddha Kapoor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do help me. I'm adding reliable links and the other user is reverting everyone of them. I'm only reverting to save my work from being erased and not to involve in a edit war. Why isn't the other user being warned? I never engaged in any edit wars anywhere other than on Shraddha Kapoor page but even that is because I don't want my work or the authenticity of the page to be in question. Please do understand. Thanks - Rose$keel (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate concern about whether the source is reliable, and that's being discussed at the talk page. Until consensus is reached to include the source, it should remain out of the article. By repeatedly re-adding the material to the article, you are engaging in an edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But the other user isn't open to reach a consensus. I tried pointing out the reliability of my source by providing other links but the user Smauritius seems to have some very bigoted notions and she will never allow the link to be added. She is a fan of the said actor and cannot be reasoned with which I assure you I tried. So that means I should not add any links for fear of them being removed? There's hardly a fair reasoning here. If you just google her username Smauritius you can see how she is a fan of sharaddha kapoor. How can such a person be allowed to take a call on this? Doesn't wikipedia have any rules. Cannot a unbiased third person take a call on this?- Rose$keel (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the only two people involved in the discussion, then yes, you can request a third opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad idea to remove other editors' comments from any discussion page other than your own. I've restored my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it was not done consciously. I was already editing my comment and you must have commented in the meantime so accidentally your comment got removed. I'm still learning the hang of conversing in wikipedia boards. As a matter of fact, I learnt how to properly sign a comment only today. Please overlook any inadvertent mistakes I may commit in the process. Thanks. - Rose$keel (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more question I had to ask, Why was I given a warning for 3RR violation when the user Smauritius who engaged in the same was not. Is this some kind of biased treatment towards new contributors? Please elaborate so that I know how editing on Wikipedia works. If it is going to be biased I might as well stop editing any more pages. Even reliable links I provide are being dubbed as dubious and unreliable from someone who doesn't even know how things work in the Hindi film industry. There is no fair treatment here at all as far as I can see. Just because a fanatic user found issue with a legit link that too because the real age of her idol was getting revealed, my link was categorized to be unreliable, based solely on her questionable comments in the edit summary. Where is fairness in all this? Is this how Wikipedia works? Rose$keel (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not other users were sanctioned is not directly an issue. The issue is with your conduct. And, frankly, labeling other issues as "fanatic" does not help your cause. It could be seen as a personal attack.

That said, as my comment at Talk:Shraddha Kapoor should have illustrated, it's not clear to all users—and Wikipedia is a worldwide site with no geography-bias in who can/should edit articles—how CINTAA's website meets the criteria of a reliable source. User:Smauritius challenged the source on the basis that it is user editable. The question I have is whether it's that openly editable, which would make it unreliable, or if it's a self-published source, editable by the subjects themselves (or their agents). —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely sorry if I crossed any Wikipedia code of conduct lines. As I said, I'm new here and yet to get my moorings. Calling any user fanatic was wrong but I got the word from this Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic page. From what I read on User Talk:Smauritius fanatic seemed the right word to use here. anyway I'm sorry for the unwarranted mistake. CINTAA's website is not user editable. It has an executive committee(headed by the members of the Hindi film fraternity) which screens all profiles and only genuine profiles are given a membership number and card. That is why I have been asking you all time and again to acknowledge it's authenticity and grant it reliable source status. Rest is up to you and other editors to decide. I rest my case.Rose$keel (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Shraddha Kapoor". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]