Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 29 September 2023

Welcome!

Hi MrMkG! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta 03:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is regarding the edit you made at Bharatiya Janata Party. Please know that we allow content that are supported by reliable sources. But this page is related to a Contentious topics. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. You must have got a notice when you started editing the page. Please follow the directions. Another revert without discussing might be counted as Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. Shaan Sengupta 03:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I finished reading the guidelines and polices. You allege that I'm making "unconstructive" edits and that my edits "appear to be disruptive". Now you need to specific exactly which one of the policies you claim that I have violated because I can not see any reasonable basis for this accusation.

When you say "we allow content that is supported by reliable sources" and in the same breath say "but this page is related to contentious topics". What is this supposed to mean? That it gives you the right to remove these reliable sources? I can not imagine that being one of any reasonable interpretations of "contentious topics".

My sources are as solid as they get since they are academic sources published by the likes of Oxford University Press and Routledge. Whereas you did not even provide a reason for removing them.

Next, there is the curious case of the "notice" (Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party). I did encounter it beforehand as a pop-up so let us assess some facts about it.

1. In your editing summary () you claim "It states that any contentious changes are needed to be discussed at talk page first".

1.1. The notice does not say this.

1.2. Fixing a editing glitch that hid a text and adding more reliable sources to support the text is far less "contentious" than removing these reliable sources and the associated text itself.

1.3. You did not apply the claimed discuss first standard on yourself.

2. In the same editing summary, you say "I am aware that we are not supposed to make more than one revert within 24 hours. But it is allowed in limited circumstances."

2.1. The notice does say this.

2.2 The revert is within 24 hours of your previous revert.

2.3. You are claiming the "limited circumstances" exemption. The notice redirects to a page which lists 8 kinds of exemptions of which you have not specified which one you are taking.

2.3.1. The exemptions are "self revert" (not applicable), own userpage (not applicable), banned users (not applicable), obvious vandalism like page blanking and offensive words (not applicable), copyright (not applicable), illegal content like cp or piracy (not applicable), bad content in biographies (not applicable), spam (not applicable). Please specify which one you're taking. None of them are applicable and you can not take such an exemption.

Lastly, let us take a look at two simple facts about what might or might not be counted as "edit warring".

1. I made one revert of your edit. You made two reverts of my edit.

2. I did not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. You made 2 reverts within 24 hours with full knowledge of the notice.

MrMkG (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG first of all you didn't need to come to my talk page at all when the discussion is already going here. And you have served me with multiple spam notices. Now answering you point wise.

• Content supported with reliable sources are allowed but when you are making large scale changes to a page that comes under contentious topics, you are required to bring it to talk page, discuss it first and gain a consensus. Then make changes according to it. There is absolutely no doubt that Oxford is a good source.
• Edit warring is not only when you revert only one person's edit. I can clearly see that you have reverted other editor who reverted you here.
• 1st revert of yours-Revision as of 01:41, 27 September 2023
• 2nd revert of yours Revision as of 02:24, 28 September 2023

Now this is not within 24 hours but just after 24 hours that also counts as a violation. Your mistake is that you should have initiated a discussion only after you were revrted first if not then definitely after second. But you choose to revert my edit and term it as dubious. So you are at fault here. You have already judged that no exemptions are applicable. Let me tell you which one is applicable. Because you are the one constantly re-reverting your version without addressing other editors concern will count as you spamming. This is the 24-hour revert exemption. Every notice doesn't say to discuss. Because the contentious topics are always discussed as per rules. Shaan Sengupta 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are accusing me of serving you "spam notice" and you are taking the spam exemption for not following the page notice of not reverting more than once in 24 hours.

Are you claiming that the "disruption" is that I am a "spammer" and that I am "spamming"? The exemption page (WP:3RRNO) links to a page detailing what is called spam (WP:ADS) and none of them can be reasonably applied. It mentions "advertisement masquerading as articles", "external link spamming" and "adding references for promotion" as types of spam. Which one are you accusing me of doing? This is completely untenable and a false accusation. I demand an immediate apology and a full retraction.

Show me the place where it is written that changes in "contentious topics" must be discussed first, I have scoured through the wikipedia pages about contentious topics and have not found it anywhere. The change was also not large scale by any stretch of imagination, it was a minor glitch fix and couple references for a pre-existing text. You yourself did not see the need for discussion first when you removed the pre-existing text afterwards which is a greater change.

The other person had reverted me in the past had either not read the sources or read the wrong source so I quoted the source and it was over there. He or she did not contest it. Even if we consider that as a "revert" for this incident, you yourself have done two reverts (Revision as of 14:18, 27 September 2023 and Revision as of 03:09, 28 September 2023) and unlike me have not abided by the 24 hour rule.

Your edit was and remains dubious because you did not provide a reason to object to the content. I have started the discussion on the talk page that you demanded but you have still not provided a reason. Please go to the talk page (Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party) and provide a reason immediately so that the discussion you have been pining for can occur. MrMkG (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG Just to clarify I didn't call you spammer. I said said you spammed (means repeated) your edit despite getting reverted twice. Now, there is no reason to drag it further since another user has already started a disscussion on the same thing. I had already given an example when similar thing was discussed before at BJP's talk page. I also pinned Kautilya who said what I am saying today. You want to put those things so its you who need to gain a consensus. I can't propose on what others want. Therefore I would request you to kindly give your points there in that discussion. Dragging this thing won't get us to any conclusion. Rather discussing and gaining consensus will. Hope you understand. Rest depends on you. If you want to continue this, please do so, but to let you know I am not. I will be more happy to see you at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party rather here. Shaan Sengupta 10:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left a comment there. The other person and me are in agreement. Mr. Shaan Sengupta, you have not provided a objection to the content yourself. So there is no one opposing it and no one has provided a reason for objection. Can you clarify on the talk page that the content can be restored and that you will not revert further? MrMkG (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you took the spam word the other way. By spam I meant you repeated yourself at multiple places. Anways, I won't drag that. Since this seems to be done shall I now close it here? Or you can. Rest content related thing I will e explain my point there. Shaan Sengupta 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Spam means unwanted bulk content for advertising or malicious purposes such as spam mail. The page detailing spam on wikipedia (WP:ADS) defines it in the same fashion.

Nevertheless, I still need the clarification on whether you will revert or not if the content is restored now. This is essential for resolution. Either you need to give a content related "policies and guidelines" based objection or you need to give clarification that you won't revert further because there is no one else objecting. MrMkG (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In have already put forward my point there. I only meant repeating by spam and not that. Sad that I forgot it has this meaning too.Shaan Sengupta 11:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages;
• 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. El_C 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)