User talk:Arctan371

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

November 2012

Hello, and

Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. 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

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. SMS Talk 21:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta

You shouldn't do references that way. See wp:citing sources on how to do them. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus
rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is basic policy - all statements made in articles must be
Talk:Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta and that other people have been involved there. Those people, alas, do not include yourself. You will also note that there are at least three people who have disagreed with your edits to the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You have been
page protection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Yes
The 
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision
" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat behaviour Hi, it really would be better if you do not immediately return to the habits that caused you to get blocked. That you have done so is unfortunate but you could still demonstrate some good faith by discussing the matter. I mean, you'll not get your way even then unless you find some
Five Pillars should give you the general background. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, I was sorry to see your
verified. Can you find newspaper/website etc sources to support what you want to say? They would really need to be ones that are independent of the Hazara people but my suspicion is that there are a lot out there. For example, we already cite the BBC. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that you may find this to be a fruitful source to use in the article. We are usually wary of blogs as sources but when it is written by a Reuters correspondent and is part of a series analysing the present-day state of Pakistan, well, it should be fine. It would be good to get the article away from being just a list of incidents: they numb the reader's brain after a while and what is more significant here is an idea of the numbers involved and an exposition of the background, the reasons, the effects etc of the situation. If you need any help with using the source then just yell. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Edit warring (reverting other people's edits over and over) usually results in a block. It is customary and desirable for both parties to resolve the situation in a talk page, usually (the talk page of the article or the talk page of the other user) and reach a compromise.

You can provide a source (books, university study, news source) to your information. It is unlikely to be deleted then.

Seeing as this is a slightly ideological issue, I'd like to impart my previous experience as well. My ethnic group are also being subjected to a slow genocide in South Africa, but a few years ago, there was so little acceptance of that fact that there was only minor information of it on Wikipedia (one sentence at the time, if I recall). I gave up trying to push things I knew, because news sources didn't report it yet, and my edits just get removed without reputable sources.
One day, though, mass media became aware of the problem, and I (and others) could finally put those edits into Wikipedia. This was a couple of years ago, but having a reputable source really helps, especially with issues like these.
Wikipedia is a tough beast to fight, and if I were you, I'd rather not fight it to win, except for imparting opinion on a talk page or two.. Because it might mean you lose your privilege to edit here altogether. Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of knowledge. If you tell people you know about the plight of the Hazara, it might one day reach mass media sources here in the UK, resulting in a propagation of awareness and knowledge of the issue, and eventually an improvement of information online about it.


BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arctan371&oldid=522800824"