User talk:GreenBeret65

GreenBeret65, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi GreenBeret65! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2015 (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 sock puppetry.
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. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; 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) 15:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Husain Haqqani. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in an edit war, if you go by the history of the Hussain Haqqani article you will find that I have contributed sourced content to the article incompliance with the Wikipedia rules. My only concern is that instead of pushing a specific POV kindly reach a consensus before making any edits, as not just me but many other editors and commenters have also expressed their concerns time and time again about the bias nature of the article especially wrf to your edits, even so an so the prime witness of the memogate case i.e Mansoor Ijaz was forced to come to the page talk and tell you to stop pushing a specific POV especially with content you added from Ayesha Jalal`s book, my only request is to listen to him and reach a consensus with him as per Wiki BLP rules as he is the prime witness of the memogate case and also please to not ignore numerous commenters who have voiced their opinions in the talk page. Thank you GreenBeret65 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my edits twice and that is edit-warring. You say that "BLP and OR rules" require me to reach a consensus with Mr. Mansoor Ijaz. Can you show me where they require it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement of reaching a "consensus" with anybody before making edits. If valid policy-based objections are raised against any new content, then an effort is made to reach consensus. Content is not written based on editors' opinions. It is based on what the reliable sources say. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you are edit warring. If you want to show some good will, self-revert. If not, this may end with you getting blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, I am all for goodwill please hear me out I only reverted it back to the way it was TODAY, the content which is disputed not only by the sourced info but also especially by the prime witness of the whole memogate case i.e Mansoor Ijaz as well as by the ruling of the commission set up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan which overlooked the memogate case. I have stated the reasons for reverting it, I don`t have any problem with your edits but I do have concerns with Kautilya and Hebel edits, I am all for pleading my innocence how can this content be added when its still disputed, and also under discussion in the talk page especially by the prime witness i.e Mansoor Ijaz not to mention that as per WikiProject Biography and WikiProject United States his rating is GA-class. How can I be banned/blocked for not allowing someone to push a specific POV? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenBeret65 (talk • contribs)

User:GreenBeret65 I have no axe to grind in this matter but you have to be careful about WP:BLP and Mr. Mansoor Ijaz, as an editor on Wikipedia has an WP:COI issue concerning this issue. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenBeret, you should definitely listen to Drmies carefully. He is one of the seniormost editors on Wikipedia.

Your approach to the issue needs to be seriously revised. (Since you are saying you are new to Wikipedia, I am spelling it out in gory detail.)

My content was written before Christmas, and I self-reverted in consideration for involved editors so that they enjoy their holidays peacefully. I also invited them to bring additional sources. Todate, none has been brought.
Wikipedia is written based on scholarly sources. News media are used for current events which may not be covered in scholarly sources. But once the scholarly sources appear for a subject, all media-based content is replaced by scholarly material.
If there is a conflict between the scholarly sources and the news sources, the scholarly sources take priority.
The commission report is a WP:PRIMARY source, which can only be used for additional detail when supported by scholarly sources. In this case, Mr. Ijaz raised the point that the scholarly sources may not have had access to the Commission's Report. In consideration for that, I have retained some of the references to the Commission. But, when scholarly sources appear which take the report into account, even those references will be removed.
Scholarly sources are written by experts in the field, and you are wrong to claim that they represent a "specific POV". If you continue to claim this, you will not be considered innocent.
Mr. Ijaz, with his knowledge in the subject, is welcome to publish his views in peer-reviewed journals. If and when he does so, we will take them into account.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Husain Haqqani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It seems to me that you have already exceeded 3 reverts for the day. You need to stay out of it for the foreseeable future. Or, an admin will definitely block you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies @DoRD Why am I being blocked?GreenBeret65 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]