You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sonal Shah. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kingturtle, I don't like wars myself, and I shall be more careful about that article. I sincerely think that my edit was not a "war" or disruptive in any way. It seemed to me that there was a sock/meat puppet of somebody making disruptive edit, and I reverted it once. --ManasShaikh (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sania Mirza appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad to be of service. Santhali now redirects to the Santali redirect page.
PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hi Manas! I would like to ask you to revert your recent addition to the Gaza flotilla raid lead. This information is included elsewhere in the article and if we include it in the lead we will also need to include, for balance, the IDF statements about the passengers wearing bullet proof vests (thus accounting for the shots). There are also POV issues with this information as per the Talk section.
Hi Zuchinni one, thanks for the feedback. What's there is news report from Third party. I am not quoting the activists. So the need to quote "both sides" does not appear. However, if you think that the IDF's claims are important, please go ahead and add the information with references. We can discuss from there and improve the article. Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are quoting a 3rd source. It is based off the Turkish autopsy and was discussed in depth earlier on the talk page. The problem is not the fact that it is a 3rd source, but rather that it is POV and makes implications about the Israeli soldiers being especially violent. This is the same kind of implication made by Israeli news reports of the attackers wearing bullet proof vests and autopsy results from Israel that suggest the troops were fired upon by weapons not used by Israel, and thus on board prior to their arrival. The lead has been very contentious and as a result the length was getting out of control.
I agree with you that the Turkish autopsy results are relevant and should be included in the article. But by including them in the lead you introduce the kind of well-intentioned POV that has resulted in MANY edit wars. If we include all the POV info in the lead it will be out of control and full of innuendo rather than facts. This is in opposition to WP:Lead.
I hope that makes sense and you understand why I'm asking you to remove it from the lead.
Hi Zuchinni one Thank you for your feedback. As you have implied, it is clearly an important piece of information. Now facts are not considered POV. The auspsy reports are beyond dispute. On the other hand, the newspapers report Israeli claims. No proof has been provided- nor did the newspapers were able to verify the claims.
In fact, I'd argue that the fact is so important and relevant, that the exclusion of it may be considered POV. The WP:NPOV article puts it wonderfully- "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view."
{{unblock| 1=[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=IHH_(%C4%B0nsani_Yard%C4%B1m_Vakf%C4%B1)&diff=366397533&oldid=366379787 This edit] cited as part of violation of 3RR was not a revert. It was a contribution. }}.
Two notes: (1) when one party reverts three times and the other four, we usually block both sides. (2) Partial reverts are still reverts - in that edit, you reverted Plot Spoiler's change from "claim" to "assert" --B (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought if I was telling him that he can't revert my edits without discussing them first, and if he was not following the rules, then I can revert many times, right? I was not trying to disrupt the article. I constantly tried to engage him. Please reconsider this decision. ManasShaikh (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar dispute in the past, where I was encouraged to revert edits by the other editor after I tried to persuade him to discuss the matter, and he refused. I did that, and it caused no problem at that time. Secondly, I had no idea that partial reverts are also considered reverts. I was trying to stick to 3RR. I will appreciate if you unblock. ManasShaikh (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the first part. Saying "don't revert me" doesn't give you free reign to revert him. Your efforts to engage were in the form of warnings, not in the form of actual discussion about the suitability of your respective edits. Both the article and the talk page appear to be well-monitored - you can discuss whatever needs to be discussed there rather than simply reverting. Reverting once can be a good idea, I suppose (see WP:BRD), but the third part of that "bold-revert-discuss" cycle is "discuss". After reverting once, you need to dialogue, not continue reverting back and forth. --B (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the first part I was talking about a different dispute. But never mind that. As for warning: I warned him only in the last two messages. (when he had already reverted at least five times, and still refused to discuss on the talk page, or respond to my requests.) Before that I was trying to inform him what might be wrong with his edits and his approach. I wasn't really warning him in those messages. ManasShaikh (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I unblock you, will you promise not to revert that article for the duration of the block time (23 hours and change) and to discuss the issue on the article talk page? I will make the same offer to the other party. --B (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B, I am not in the least bit trying to be disruptive. I hope you will agree. I had no idea that partial reverts will count as reverts, otherwise I wouldn't have done that. Even without a warning/let alone a block. I understand that you are trying to be fair, but please understand that I wasn't deliberately trying to cause problems.
See if you can edit now ... I have unblocked you and I think I cleared the autoblock, but it's sometimes a mystery whether or not that will work. ;) --B (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, B. I appreciate that. I'll check if I can edit tomorrow. I am sleepy, and now I can happily sleep without the feeling of being a contraband in wikiland. :) ManasShaikh (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please add at least the photo from this article to "Activists and flotilla organizers' account" section.
Please add at least the photo from this article to "Activists and flotilla organizers' account" section.
The article is locked for editing for new users, which is why I can't add this photo:
Hi Razorback, a warm welcome to wikipedia. As you can see, things get a bit rough here at times. I hope you will enjoy editing and stay. The longer you stay, the more reliable you are treated as.
Five years on Wiki and my first Barnstar! Hope you stick around on the article it could use more "pro-Wiki" editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RomaC. You deserve it. I am surprised that you never got one before. I am not familiar with how you work, but on this occasion, you were calm, never made any allegations and were respectful of wikipedia's rules and goals. I hope you would stick around in WP for much longer. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems very confused as to who actually started the violence, surely amongst the very most important aspects. I'd like to write something that fairly represented both versions, but I'm not sure where it would fit. Do you have any ideas? Templar98 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is a bit confused. Right now, those details should go into the body- into the Mavi Marmara boarding section. It really needs some fair minded editors. If you want you can also add it in the opening paragraph, but it may not survive very long. ManasShaikh (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
