User talk:Azr996

Welcome!

Hi Azr996! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abdur Rahman Khan have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abdur Rahman Khan was changed by Azr996 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.91798 on 2024-12-24T17:06:16+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Hazara genocide (19th century), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plasticwonder (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the information on the pages was edited as it contained historically inaccurate and inflammatory information.

thanks Azr996 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Jay Cubby 17:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only intended to update the pages as it contained historically inaccurate information with dubious sources that may be deemed as inflammatory and provocative.

thanks Azr996 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you are removing would be considered reliable by the community. The changes you want need to be discussed on the the article's talk page. There, you can specify exactly which statements are inaccurate and/or why the supporting source is dubious. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice.

How can someone’s opinion be considered “ reliable” if it’s not historically factual. As per your reply, what will happen after I discuss this? Will the edit be permitted once I have posted under the talk section? Azr996 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Jalaluddin Haqqani, you may be blocked from editing. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Abdur Rahman Khan. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert my opinion or analysis but corrected the page as it contained inaccuracies and personal opinions of others. I have placed this comment under the talk section. How can the inaccuracies be rectified without being threatened with blockage from you. Azr996 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your posts on the talk page, but then you reverted them for some reason; so there's no discussion there now. What you will need most is patience. Contested edits go through when consensus is reached through discussion on the talk page; or consensus may never be reached. It will also help you to assume good faith and avoid expressing your knowledge of somebody else's mind, and what sinister motives they may have. You will want to be specific about what sources you think are dubious and why, and what content you think is inaccurate and why, and what sources back you up. Hope that helps. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Eyer. I noticed that you recently made an edit in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on persuading others

You should strongly avoid asserting what other authors' and editors' motives are (e.g. "seems like hazara ethno-nationalists trying to create a narrative or just simple cope mechanism"). It will backfire. If one speaks as if convinced and certain of what is in another person's mind (an impossibility), it becomes easier to conclude that the speaker is equally convinced of everything they believe, and will not be easy to discuss things with. And I'll repeat the advice that you will need patience. Your arguments cover a number of different sources and statements, requiring more deliberation. The article has 163 page page watchers, only four of which have visited the article in the last 30 days. Consensus is sometimes achieved in a span of days or weeks. I noticed you started the discussion on a couple other related articles, too. This fractures the discussion into a number of places, which makes it much more difficult to achieve consensus (though it might expose the discussion to a larger number of viewers). One idea might be to focus the discussion on one single source or one single statement, and start with that. Best of luck. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bullshit.

instead of being able to correct errors, you have to convince others why they’re wrong. Azr996 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that my advice did not prove useful to you. At the Teahouse, there is a general Q&A forum on editing Wikipedia, where you will find a broad range of experienced editors that might be able to help. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]