User talk:Upd Edit
Welcome!
[edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Upd Edit (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.– robertsky (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky and Liz:
- > Have you previously done any serious editing on this project or another Wikimedia project under another username?
- Yes. About 8 years ago.
- > How do we even know that you are an editor in good standing here?
- I see no need to attach a character certificate. Whatever I wrote was supported by citations to reliable sources. And neither did I say anything untruthful nor did I try to harangue others.
- That said, I am happy that the community paid no heed to Robertsky's misplaced wielding of cop-mentality. Upd Edit (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- eh... a misplaced wielding of cop-mentality would simply to block first and ask later. Did I? And I don't recall asking the questions above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Upd_Edit_-_project_sock?. All I asked if this account should be blocked as project sock account. – robertsky (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Liz asked them to me per a notification which now seem to be lost. Upd Edit (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Upd Edit, you say that whatever you wrote was supported by citations to reliable sources. But your very first edit ever was on the open letter page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- My edits to the open letter page were supported by reliable sources. Upd Edit (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- eh... a misplaced wielding of cop-mentality would simply to block first and ask later. Did I? And I don't recall asking the questions above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Upd_Edit_-_project_sock?. All I asked if this account should be blocked as project sock account. – robertsky (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Warning: Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing on Shahi Jama Masjid
[edit] | I wanted to address a few concerns regarding your edits to the Shahi Jama Masjid article:
1. Edit warring: Before I made any changes, multiple users had already reverted your edits. Continuously reverting others' contributions without consensus is considered edit warring, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines. 2. Page move: You also moved the page to an incorrect title, which is a vandalism. Page titles should reflect the subject accurately and follow naming conventions. Unjustified moves disrupt the organization of Wikipedia and should be avoided. 3. Content relevance: You're attempting to add irrelevant informations to this article. While it's important to provide accurate and relevant information, articles should focus on the subject itself. If the content doesn't directly relate to the mosque, it may not belong here. Ensure that any additions are well-supported and relevant, per notability and verifiability standards. Since you're a new user, I recommend you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and start by editing less sensitive articles . It's important to understand how Wikipedia works and how to engage in collaborative editing before working on articles that involve sensitive topics. Please review the five pillars and other policies to better understand the community’s expectations. Thank you |
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- What irrelevant content did I insert at the article — can you quote a couple of such lines rather than being unworkably vague? Additionally, if you are certain about the merits of your argument, why the reticence to discuss my edits at the article talk page?
- I moved the page to a far rational title and the one who reverted simply felt that such a move should be discussed. I disagree but do not mind if it stays at the current title. But my move was not vandalism (have you clicked on the link and read what it is and what it is not?) You keep on invoking the "multiple users" who have reverted me but I see only a couple — one of whom has as many edits as me but across seven years and didn't discuss their issues at the article talk page; the other had a concern with MOS about a single edit but mistakenly rolled back all edits.
- So, once again, do you understand that talk page discussion is not optional? Upd Edit (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think I am in compliance. Upd Edit (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not really. You edit warred. I realize that you were up against tag-teaming. But you need to get wider attention from the community, for example, by asking for other eyes at WT:INDIA, rather than to attempt tit-for-tat reverts. If you cross WP:3RR, you can be blocked irrespective of the merits of your edits. Please keep that in mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I will keep that in mind. Upd Edit (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not really. You edit warred. I realize that you were up against tag-teaming. But you need to get wider attention from the community, for example, by asking for other eyes at WT:INDIA, rather than to attempt tit-for-tat reverts. If you cross WP:3RR, you can be blocked irrespective of the merits of your edits. Please keep that in mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Upd Edit (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a single edit to the talk-page. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Upd_Edit reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: ). Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended confirmed
[edit]I guess you have noticed that the article has been EC-protected for a year. It is normal for contentious topics, though the time period in this case may have been excessive.
I don't know what your plans are. Do you want to stick around and work towards getting Extended Confirmed status? Or, are you interested in just this one topic?
EC requires 500 edits. We generally want people to work on a broad range of topics and interact with a broad range of editors and issues so thta they can learn the ropes of how to be an experienced Wikipedian. The Arbitration Committee (ARBCOM) has decided some time ago that that level of experience is required to work on contentious topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- > Do you want to stick around and work towards getting Extended Confirmed status?
- Yes. I am currently thinking of other topics that I can meaningfully contribute to. However, I disagree with the protection. It penalized me and others equally when I was the one who was requesting them multiple times to discuss the article at the talk-page.
- For now, I am content with making edit-requests like I made here. And thanks for convincing the administrator to withdraw the page-level block on me. Upd Edit (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it didn't help, did it? Instead of twiddling your thumbs for two weeks, now you have to work to get back in. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you send me the Ram Nath's article in the Pakistan Historical Society? Send me a sample email first (via User talk:Kautilya3 page). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have not added an email to my account and do not plan to. But let me think of a way. Upd Edit (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)