User talk:Someguywhosbored
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Someguywhosbored! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly for the introduction :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Someguywhosbored. Please note that I undid your edits here as they were removing sourced material. None of your edits appeared related to any material inserted by blocked accounts at the article's history. jellyfish ✉ 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Jellyfish! Thank you for your concern, but the edit was indeed from a sockpuppet account named mydust. Here’s the original edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1138802046
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1139021826
- Not only is it written by a sockpuppet, it contradicts the main article. So it shouldn't be left there. He’s made many more edits on the page which I should probably edit out soon. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- One more edit by him that I forgot to cite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1138801881
- if there is no other disagreements here, I’m going to revert it back. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as long as everything is sourced.
jellyfish ✉ 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation! There was one question I forgot to ask. Does that mean I should cite the original edit I’m removing in the summary page anytime I delete a sockpuppets edits from now on? I didn’t do that previously out of convenience, but if it’s required, plugging in a few links shouldn’t be too much of a hassle for me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not required, but if it's removing something put in the article quite a while ago, it would definitely help. jellyfish ✉ 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- All right. Once again thank you for letting me know :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not required, but if it's removing something put in the article quite a while ago, it would definitely help. jellyfish ✉ 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation! There was one question I forgot to ask. Does that mean I should cite the original edit I’m removing in the summary page anytime I delete a sockpuppets edits from now on? I didn’t do that previously out of convenience, but if it’s required, plugging in a few links shouldn’t be too much of a hassle for me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as long as everything is sourced.
Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
[edit]That sock is now blocked. Can you remove Afghanistan too now? It is also based on the poor sourcing just like the addition of India was. Capitals00 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I’ve seen sources in the past that detail the Afghan Talibans support for the TTP. I wasn’t sure about the sources posted in the article, but after checking the Perennial sources, the New York times and voice of America, seem reliable Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- However I can still remove this section if there is another issue that I’m not aware of. For now though, the sources cited here don’t appear to be unreliable. But I’m open to having my mind changed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of those references cited for Afghanistan are third party sources. That's why Afghanistan should be removed too. Capitals00 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you clarify how these sources are not independent/third party? If there’s an issue there, I’m happy to revert myself. But I need to be absolutely sure that these articles can’t be listed as a citation on that page. Per perennial sources page, both articles are listed as “reliable”. I don’t see how these aren’t independent sources but if you can provide evidence, I’ll gladly remove it. It doesn’t appear that the talk page discussion mentioned the sources listed for Afghanistan. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- TTP is what those sources are talking about. TTP is already listed as belligerent so why there should be a mention of Afghanistan? Capitals00 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because those sources also mention the Afghan Taliban support for the TTP. Look at the title of the voice of America article for example. “
- UN: Al-Qaida, Afghan Taliban Assist TTP With Attacks in Pakistan”.
- I don’t see why they should be removed if the citations are reliable. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- TTP is what those sources are talking about. TTP is already listed as belligerent so why there should be a mention of Afghanistan? Capitals00 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you clarify how these sources are not independent/third party? If there’s an issue there, I’m happy to revert myself. But I need to be absolutely sure that these articles can’t be listed as a citation on that page. Per perennial sources page, both articles are listed as “reliable”. I don’t see how these aren’t independent sources but if you can provide evidence, I’ll gladly remove it. It doesn’t appear that the talk page discussion mentioned the sources listed for Afghanistan. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of those references cited for Afghanistan are third party sources. That's why Afghanistan should be removed too. Capitals00 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)