User talk:Za69

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Rajauri. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jarral. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Za69/sandbox (November 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Za69/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jarral may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[travels to cashmere ]]* by*[[H.T

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarral

You asked at User talk:A930913/BracketBotArchives/ 6#BracketBot – Za69 about your changes to the Jarral and Rajauri articles. Sitush reverted your additions to the former, and while I haven't checked all details, I have to agree with him that your edits were not a net benefit. There are a couple of issues with your edits.

Firstly, you rather obviously copy-pasted the content you added from another wiki article or possibly from old versions of those same articles - but you copy-pasted badly: The code you added was the displayed text, not the wiki-code that generated that text. Thereby you lost all kinds of formatting: Wikilinks, section headers, an infobox, everything. That could be fixed (either by copy-pasting the code itself, not the displayed text, or by spending a vast amount of work and manually re-adding all the lost formatting).
But secondly, it was completely unclear which of the references were meant to support which part of the content, and according to edit summaries in the page history, the most relevant parts of the content aren't actually based on the sources.
Thirdly, significant parts of the content were far off-topic. For example, what does the price of Musaman Burj tell us about a Kashmiri Rajput tribe? Nothing.
Fourthly, the references are old. There are very few avenues of science which haven't made significant progress over the last century, and I don't think Kashmiri ethnography is among them. Put differently: I wouldn't put too much stock in what 19th century British authors write about Indian tribes. That's likely seen through a colonial lens, biased, and unreliable.

For these reasons I don't think your edits were an improvement. Huon (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]