User talk:Amelia Reed

Amelia Reed, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Amelia Reed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 Wikipedia'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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, you may be blocked from editing. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Are you trying to intimidate me? Lol. Please stop being in denial. Theology is a very extensive subject, there is no religion in the world that hasn't been used as an excuse to propagate violence. Was the previous Ram Mandir destroyed by a Mughal Emperor? No one knows. But the existence of a Hindu Temple is an undeniable fact. I should appreciate it if you could put aside your personal feelings. And ditto, stop with the disruptive editing. Unless you have better sources, stop editing the article. Amelia Reed (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed[reply]

Amelia Reed, please respond to the thread on the article's Talk page. I have explained my intentions there. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ram Mandir, Ayodhya 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Wire (India), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Read WP:UGC as well as WP:OR, please. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Ram Mandir, Ayodhya. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I disagree. When asked for a citation, I provided the same. When asked for a better citation, I provided additional citations for the same. My edits were deleted without a proper reason being given. This deletion was done independently of the other extensive changes made to the page. I did NOT even interact with you and you sanctioned me without warning. Your party alone acted in bad faith. All of my actions were motivated to remove bias and improve neutrality. Wikipedia has been criticized for far too long for being 'left' and is now not even taken seriously. Amelia Reed (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, just to clarify, you haven't been sanctioned, and K3 and I cannot sanction you. Neither can we block you; we aren't administrators. What the warnings are about is that administrators may decide to do the same if they find your behaviour remains to be the same. I'd suggest you read the relevant policies K3 has mentioned. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Since we are talking about my behaviour, I want to know more. Was I offensive to a particular group of people? Did I add a blatant lie while ignoring the truth? Were my contributions not properly cited? When it comes to your behaviour, you ignored one side of the argument. You added bias to an article that was is supposed to be neutral. And you denied facts despite evidence on the contrary. You used intimidation tactics instead of having a conversation. Amelia Reed (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, I'm just going to say that at the end of the day, we mean well. Please assume good faith. Read the relevant policies stated to understand why your behaviour was problematic. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Have a good day. Read this to understand why journalism MUST remain neutral and why Wikipedia is losing its authenticity. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Amelia Reed (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My warning above was based on this comment, specifically, "Clearly we cannot come to an agreement about this. While I value neutrality, you seem to be in disagreement about the same.... In view of your past actions that were in bad faith, I will disregard any future objections from you and Kautilya3".

Wikipedia is based on teamwork and WP:CONSENSUS. Comments like this vitiate the discussion and make it harder to arrive at CONSENSUS. So, in the end, they work against you. If you have an attitude like, "you people are all wrong, I am going to fix it myself", you won't be able to get far.

Other than this, I am glad to say that you have been quite civil and have been discussing issues in a proper manner. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Unfortunately, please understand that I cannot say the same about you. Our introduction has been unpleasant, to say the least. I would have no problem with your behavior were it not for your ARBIPA sanctions alert that you posted yesterday. Or for the 'disrupt editing' alert posted by your friend SerChevalerie. You keep expecting me to work in good faith but you don't seem to follow it yourself. Yes, I read the AGF page, and both of your behaviors were problematic. Instead of encouraging a discussion, your friend did the exact opposite. He only conceded to the changes after you entered the discussion. And when it comes to "You people are all wrong, I am going to fix it myself", please feel free to look at the argument from the start till the present. This will be the last article that I contribute to because I find the environment to be hostile and does not contribute to neutrality and open-mindedness, which in case you couldn't tell, I value above everything else. Thank you for everything. Have a good day. No, I will not report you or your behavior because I believe you mean well, though are thoroughly misguided in your approach. If any day the situation arises, I look forward to working on better terms. Amelia Reed (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it isn't so. K3 just weighed in and pushed for a consensus. That's generally how these discussions go. Granted, I was a bit trigger happy with the disruptive editing warning, but as I said, you reverted two full sections of mine when the initial dispute was over a single line. I'm glad that you have apologized for your behaviour, and FWIW, so do I. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Please stop. You seem to make the situation worse than it is. I'm hoping that it is unintentionally. I will accept the "non-apology apology". Please lets leave it at this. I rather not make this even more unpleasant. Amelia Reed (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, you can check the Talk page of the article, we have replied there (maybe not tagged you). SerChevalerie (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will accept the criticism that my interaction with you was "unpleasant". But please note that you had hit 3RR within the first few days of your editing. That is a problem sign for us. But on the whole, I value the point of view you bring, and hope that you will contnue editing. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger etc.

Amelia Reed, I have read the piece you mentioned above. Just for some further reading (again, WP:AGF towards me): User talk:Newslinger § Continuation.

Also please see WP:SIGNATURE. I think you're typing it out by yourself. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brown Girl Magazine (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Spicy were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The magazine's own website is not an acceptable source. Third-party coverage is required. The article claims the magazine has been "mentioned" by various media outlets - if there is substantial coverage (not mere mentions) of the magazine in these publications, please cite it in the article. Promotional language such as "elevating those with creative passions", "improve community building and empowerment" etc should be removed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brown Girl Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brown Girl Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Spicy (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bhaskar Medical College (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Buidhe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bhaskar Medical College and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bhaskar Medical College, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

(t · c) buidhe 05:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Brown Girl Magazine

Hello, Amelia Reed. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Brown Girl Magazine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bhaskar Medical College

Hello, Amelia Reed. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bhaskar Medical College, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bhaskar Medical College

Hello, Amelia Reed. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bhaskar Medical College".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]