Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PadFoot (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia;
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.
Hi, I saw that you made a deplorable personal attack and casted bad faith aspersions on Padfoot2008 [1], I suggest you retract it, ethnicity/nationality based personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions are not permitted at all. Ratnahastin(talk)14:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's perfectly fine to mention someone's nationality. What isn't fine is personal attacks. Please don't accuse other editors of bias like that. We're all required to follow WP:NPOV regardless of our backgrounds. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.
You must comply with this guideline. Do not denigrate other editors based on their race, nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, level of education or career. Consider this a formal warning. Focus on content, not the contributor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was not aware of this guideline. In fact I tried searching for any rules, seems no rule against it, but there is guideline about it. I dont talk about the person even during normal arguments outside wikipedia too, but this particular case looked like an exception to me. Crashed greek (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no exceptions. Attacks on other editors based on any personal characteristics are strictly forbidden. Other editors are your colleagues to be treated with respect, not to be treated as your enemies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you have absolutely no good reason to claim an exception in this case. Refrain from WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you behave this way again, you will be blocked. Is that clear, or do I need to tell you that even more emphatically? Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how hard to try to wriggle out of it, You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased is an utterly unacceptable thing to say to a colleague and you must never say anything like that again. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will keep that in mind. With this kind of administration, wikipedia is at the risk of getting banned in countries like India, as warned by a court recedntly. To be replaced by a clone website as it is open source. Crashed greek (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
When you wrote With this kind of administration, wikipedia is at the risk of getting banned in countries like India, as warned by a court recedntly as if the laws of India require you to write things like You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased, then you are spouting ludicrous nonsense, and therefore you have been blocked for disruptive wikilawyering. You will never be permitted to attack other editors for their ethnicity or their nationality or any other ad hominem characteristics. If the government of India makes a reasonable request, then Wikipedia editors will pay attention. But if the government of India was to hypothetically insist that it is OK to write You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased, then Wikipedia editors worldwide would immediately reject that interference, even at the cost of being blocked, just as Wikipedia is blocked in China, and from time to time in Turkey.
No, I didnt mean to say " as if the laws of India require you to write things like You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased" as you inferred, that would be straw man. Instead, it is my understanding that wikipedia administration makes a mountain of a molehill if any centrist or right wing editors do anything, and ban them using pretexts. Indian law doesnt allow the leftist propaganda using defamation, for which the high court case is going on. Hope I clarified my earlier statement. Crashed greek (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are clearly saying that "Indian law doesn't allow the leftist propaganda using defamation" then you are effectively saying that Indian law is pro-right wing when that is not true. You are just making things worse for yourself by making "a mountain of a molehill". Ratnahastin(talk)08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you abandon your comments that try to associate any editor with a political orientation or philosophy. Doing it in the way you are doing it is casting aspersions. If you don't just accept that it was wrong to say what you say and not try to come up with some irrelevant forms of self-defense, you will be digging yourself into an indefinite block hole that won't be easy to get out of. LizRead!Talk!05:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
