Getting started
|
|
|
Finding your way around
|
|
|
Editing articles
|
|
|
|
Getting help
|
|
|
How you can help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Indianblitzwiki!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi
|
|
|
The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.
|
—SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say you cited the same sources, that may very well be, but do the sources support your change to the content? You have changed the content but cited the same sources. The person who reverted your edit on the page has explained in their edit summary what the problem was. I looked through the edit and I'll use a simple enough example for you: you added Amithabh Bhachchan to the list, while there's clearly consensus on the talk page not to do so as the subject has themselves said that they do not identify with the caste. Now mildly modifying the wording to still include in the list is what would be disruptive and can result in blocks and/or bans. —SpacemanSpiff 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, I acknowledge that, but that's just one thing I found altering a consensus of the talk page. The person who reverted the edit just bluntly re-instated the former statements. I ask you , pls. review the changes I made, adding some extra lines from the same source shoudnt be so unhealthy. I am very confident that I did a constructive edit, keeping in mind the self-dignity of the community. Morover, the person who re-edited had wrote something like "poorly sourced" ? How can a particular source be good earlier, and then suddenly if things are modified for a neutral waypoint it becomes an unreliable/bad source. Indianwiki (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand the concept of citing sources. If the source says something we say that after paraphrasing. What you are doing is to change the meaning of those sourced sentences and claiming that you are citing the same source. That is not how citing sources work. —SpacemanSpiff 18:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Arjayay has also responded to you on the talk page. Please edit with care, understand what qualifies as a reliable source and that there is to be no original research or unattributed points of view. —SpacemanSpiff 18:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, now after missing out the consensus part of my mistake i went to the talk page. but the rest of my edit wasn't poorly conceived and no original reasearch has been added; the former version portray a defamatory view about the Kayastha community. Indianwiki (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
