| Revision as of 13:26, 20 October 2024 editFylindfotberserk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers166,119 edits →October 2024: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:28, 20 October 2024 edit undo103.164.205.37 (talk) →October 2024: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::Please seek consensus in the talk page. I've clearly explained that the full quotation from the source mentions only "Sikhs" and "Indian Punjab". The existence of Muslim Virks is open to interpretation, but is not sourced (neither in the older link which is the same one but with a poorer view-ability). You can append info on Muslim Virks in a new sentence with reliable source. Even the new source you added only mentioned Jat Sikhs. - ] (]) 13:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | ::Please seek consensus in the talk page. I've clearly explained that the full quotation from the source mentions only "Sikhs" and "Indian Punjab". The existence of Muslim Virks is open to interpretation, but is not sourced (neither in the older link which is the same one but with a poorer view-ability). You can append info on Muslim Virks in a new sentence with reliable source. Even the new source you added only mentioned Jat Sikhs. - ] (]) 13:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sorry but this Its non of my business you are the first one to show your unfriendly expedition but I will sincerely adding couple of reference to make it more intelligible ] (]) 13:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing hypothetical in the content and there is no manipulation since the sources are same (check ISBN). Misplaced Pages policies like ] and ] bars us from writing things that are not sourced (likelihood of Muslim and Hindu Virks). - ] (]) 13:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | ::There is nothing hypothetical in the content and there is no manipulation since the sources are same (check ISBN). Misplaced Pages policies like ] and ] bars us from writing things that are not sourced (likelihood of Muslim and Hindu Virks). - ] (]) 13:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:28, 20 October 2024
- )
October 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Virk. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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. Why did you remove the updated source? The source clearly mention only Sikhs. If you have a relabel source mentioning Muslims and Hindu Jats, append it instead of edit warring. Also discuss in the talk page per WP:BRD Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.- I have opened a discussion here. You should use it for WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD instead of edit warring. Also Misplaced Pages relies on sources not "common knowledge". See WP:V and WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Same question to emphasise the fact virk are likely to be muslim in western Punjab and other neighbouring countryside and comprise predominant population in muslim faith but hypothetically you trying to manipulate the old neutral interpretation to exaggerate the Sikh diaspora, kind of frustration for other user indeed 103.164.205.37 (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please seek consensus in the talk page. I've clearly explained that the full quotation from the source mentions only "Sikhs" and "Indian Punjab". The existence of Muslim Virks is open to interpretation, but is not sourced (neither in the older link which is the same one but with a poorer view-ability). You can append info on Muslim Virks in a new sentence with reliable source. Even the new source you added only mentioned Jat Sikhs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry but this Its non of my business you are the first one to show your unfriendly expedition but I will sincerely adding couple of reference to make it more intelligible 103.164.205.37 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing hypothetical in the content and there is no manipulation since the sources are same (check ISBN). Misplaced Pages policies like WP:V and WP:OR bars us from writing things that are not sourced (likelihood of Muslim and Hindu Virks). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please seek consensus in the talk page. I've clearly explained that the full quotation from the source mentions only "Sikhs" and "Indian Punjab". The existence of Muslim Virks is open to interpretation, but is not sourced (neither in the older link which is the same one but with a poorer view-ability). You can append info on Muslim Virks in a new sentence with reliable source. Even the new source you added only mentioned Jat Sikhs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)