User talk:Von oberstein

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; 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! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Von oberstein (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

It is getting too clear that your account is meant only for disruption, edit wars. Before people get too worried regarding your agenda, I would suggest you to stop being a "disruption only" account. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit with care

Hi Von oberstein, Welcome to Wikipedia. I would like to point out a few points here since I have come across two edits which are concerning. First, your edit on Insurgency in Balochistan where you removed some content without doing your due diligence and checking if the content was sourced or not. Apparently there were enough WP:RS for it. Second, the revert on Yogi Adityanath on some content which was not even present in the source. I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with some of the policies on Wikipedia. If any of your edits are reverted or you are not sure, then it is advisable to open a discussion on the talk page and try to reach consensus. Edit warring or disruptive editing is frowned upon and can lead to topic bans and even block. Please be careful. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Balochistan Insurgency article, the cited article (http://www.economist.com/node/21552248) does not explicitly mention any militant groups and the umbrella term used to describe the groups involved in attacks on minorities was appropriate as no one group was singled out. In the case of the Yogi Adityanath article, it is well known that Yogi Adityanath was present on the stage during the speech, and I have added an article to the talk page so that section be re-added. I will be a little more careful in editing next time, but it's incorrect to claim there have been lapses in my judgement. Von oberstein (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case of the Balochistan article you should have done a bit more search on whether this true or not rather just look at the source mentioned. I did and found multiple articles under a single search. Second, I have already answered your questions on the Yogi article on the article talk page since there are multiple issues with that as well. This is not a warning just an advice. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that your prior edit did not take the due diligence to read the source and note that neither Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or Jamaat-e-Islam were mentioned in the article, and that Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is not an Islamist party in the country. While my edit was technically correct, yours was not. I appreciate your advice and will improve my contributions. I also recommend you take your helpful advice to make sure you don't repeat the same errors. Thanks ! Von oberstein (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

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.

—MBL ^Talk 10:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm Adamgerber80. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mahmud Ahmed without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That content was removed as the claim put forward by the TOI was backed by unknown 'sources' which to my understanding, have not been corroborated by other news sources. If you can find other news groups which could confirm TOI's 'high level sources', then that would change things. I've also noticed you've seemed to also removed content from the Brahmadagh Bugti page which was uncalled for. The sources I cited clearly state that Brahmdagh Bugti's asylum plea was rejected by Swiss authorities for links with terror groups (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/247666-switzerland-rejects-brahumdagh-s-asylum-request-after-seven-years) and is wanted in Pakistan for a number of terror-related charges (http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/377060-Brahamdagh-Bugtis-red-warrant-issued). If the point of contention is including this information in that section, I am following a format I've seen for a number of articles of wanted figures such as Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed. Von oberstein (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The asylum plea was rejected based on charges against him in other countries which is already mentioned in the article. He has not been charged by the Switzerland authorities in Switzerland which is what you mentioned and is misleading. I have even added another reference (a neutral one) which states that he is asking the Swiss authorities to reconsider his plea. Please read the sources you provide very carefully. What are you adding is WP:OR. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that by citing these claims as a reason for denying asylum, they acknowledge the validity of these claims? And in any case, you appeared to have also wiped the reference to the fact that Bugti is currently charged in a number of terrorist cases in Pakistan, which do definitely belong in the section and are definitely cited. Please add them back or I will do so myself. Von oberstein (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again read WP:OR. You have to mention only what is mentioned in the source. NOT jump to your own conclusions. Please have a look at my edit carefully. I have not wiped out any references but done a copy-edit. I moved the accusation of his terrorist attacks to the activities section since it is where it belongs not in the lead.Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you didn't provide any reasoning behind the inclusion of the TOI source. Do you possibly have knowledge of other news sources which can confirm TOI's claims? Von oberstein (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? If you are talking about Mahmud Ahmed than I have also added another netural source (guardian) to corroborate that claim. Also, TOI is a WP:RS. Please discuss the respective edits on the article talk pages or be more clear in what you mention. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]