User talk:RealAdil

In summary, little angries are distraught that some words they or their buddies documented in long-form grammar under the umbrella of self-added banners about policies, to convolute meaning of a simple concept of naming things, were improved for readability, for comprehension by an average bloke out of nowhere. Gee! While they take pleasure in parading the "policies" as laws, which are in-fact loose guidelines, they have a few tools at hand to reverse changes in bulk, and try to strong arms with their lanky arms, an average wiki contributor. Interestingly they can also wipe content with no trace in revision history. Wow, what openness!

Your contributed article, Islamabad Massacre 2024

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Islamabad Massacre 2024. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – PTI do-or-die protest. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at PTI do-or-die protest. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Wikishovel (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Article titles. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 07:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's open for contributions, lock the page rather than locking the contributor? RealAdil (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be deliberately obtuse to think that we're all okay with someone popping up to slice and dice our policies every other week. If so, it's still expressly communicated to you at several points that you need to establish consensus for significant changes to site policy. Remsense ‥ 论 08:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Remsense ‥ 论 07:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also goes for the next time you unilaterally try to make significant changes what our site policies say and mean without asking first. Cut it out. Remsense ‥ 论 07:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean unilaterally try to make significant changes. "Asking first". Asking whom? Is wikipedia running a payroll? RealAdil (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You sound emotionally riled up, and quite threatening in your verbiage. That is against any community guidelines, especially with an ability to send notifications to users, effecting their quality of engagement on the platform, and revealing yourself with highlighted username labels. RealAdil (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you're made aware about this at several points.

You're the one who was trying to unilaterally redesign what our policies say. That's way more threatening, isn't it? Remsense ‥ 论 08:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made contributions to improve an article. You perceived it as threat unilaterally. The article didn't say that it was a contentious topic, or locked because it was contentious. In the process, you have violated my personal space with yellow and red banners, and threatening my censure. That's way more threatening to the wiki policies, isn't it? RealAdil (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The site tells you at several points what policy pages are and how to edit them, and it's no one else's fault that you paid no attention to that information whatsoever and imposed your personal idiosyncracies on a document representing decades of editor consensus. It's completely egregious, Remsense ‥ 论 08:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I paid attention, and I improved it, then you reverted my improvements. Much of these guidelines mention that they are not "rules", nor "policies", where they do, it's kind of inflated in many variate words, adding contradiction. I was just starting to improve readability, and you appeared out of shadows on your high horse, vandalizing my process of contribution in line with wiki policies. RealAdil (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were bad. That's not an issue, though—the issue is that you unilaterally uprooted 20 years of consensus in making them. Your edits were not minor tweaks, and they were not improvements. That's why you ask, to see if others agree that they are improvements. Remsense ‥ 论 08:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your unilateral judgement. RealAdil (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Like I said", I've been "made aware" about what at which "several" points. Kindly be verbose in your arrogance. RealAdil (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to insult peoples' intelligence by insinuating they didn't see the huge banner at the top of the page that plainly says It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.—or the gigantic banner that fills your screen when you click edit that says You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page. Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. See content changes to policies and guidelines for more details.

I had to assume you saw these but didn't care. Remsense ‥ 论 08:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banners don't work, it's like ads. Dialog is one thing, the actual content works in effective communication. Dialogs are call-outs, too many of them get ignored. It's basic UX things. I am encouraged to follow the flow of content and improve it, those things you share have no visibility to contributors. RealAdil (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you refuse to read important information put directly in front of you is not anyone else's fault. Remsense ‥ 论 08:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem too. RealAdil (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's everyone's fault, wikis are built by communities, and maintained by contributions, and constant improvements. Certainly not on censure. RealAdil (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to respect the premise of a mutual consensus-building process that you engage in with your fellow editors, as opposed to imposing your improvements by default regardless of who may disagree with them, then we do not need or want you here. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your unilateral impression of my contributions. Premises are not supposed to be respected, they are considered, and arguments are built upon, and counter-arguments are built upon them.

Who is "we"? RealAdil (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read our policies (while trying to engage with what they actually say, instead of assuming you already know what they should say), or don't. In so doing, maybe you will learn more about who "we" are. Remsense ‥ 论 08:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you do doubt that it's not a given that the said policies clearly communicate about who "we" are?

Or are you running on the assumption that apart from yourself, and your unilateral decisions, a contributor is sufficiently retarded and incapable of comprehending a wiki document? RealAdil (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Like I said, this is a you problem. You refuse to read or engage with them. So do that, or don't. This'll be my last reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-response. It's you verbalizing your contradictions. RealAdil (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it means all documents, unless locked with clear ownership, are bound to be changed. RealAdil (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid disagreement as per wiki policies is in the form of stable changes that come in the sets contributed in the form of edits by the person disagreeing.

You apparently didn't change anything, nor improved it, except for reverting it and whining about it. Retention of a wiki page is done by locking it. RealAdil (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that they have anything useful, meaningful, purposeful productive in them. They need to be improved too. RealAdil (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that english is lingua-franca, it cannot be policized in the first place. RealAdil (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to reinforce Remsense's comments. Policies and guidelines have wide consensus and acceptance among wikipedians and major changes should be discussed before implementation. If a change to a guideline is reverted, that change should not be reinstated until the consensus of the community is shown to have changed. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's not what the said person is on about though. RealAdil (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]