Jimmy9bond
Hello, I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia personally and thank you for your edits. Just a word of advice, most of your references are good but we avoid using Wikipedia as a source for itself (as we don't do our own research we just cite others). Its great to have a new editor on the team - I hope you will want to stick around. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page or reply here if you need any help! ツStacey (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, since you have relatively little Wikipedia editing experience from what I can tell, you should know that with regard to this reversion of yours, when another editor reverts content you submit, the burden is on you to open a discussion and seek consensus for the inclusion, not to reinstate the content. Your resubmission is considered edit-warring, which is disruptive. You wrote in your edit summary: "Let people decide what will be important for them after 10, 50 or 100 years. We must report truth as it unfolds. Undid keeping 'Approaches to presenting criticism' rules in mind"
For starters, since I am a Wikipedia editor, *I* am one of the people who gets to help decide. To your point about reporting truth as it unfolds, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we are not a newspaper. Documenting someone's pissy little Twitter beef and the resulting joke backlash serves no useful academic purpose. We are not a gossip rag. And to your point that "we must report truth as it unfolds", no, we musn't if the "truth" is trivial nonsense. We're not here to catalog every aspect of a person's life. So what substantive argument do you have for the inclusion of this tripe? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mr Bomb, Hope you're having a nice day just as I am laughing after reading your message. At first I decided not to dignify your polite message with a response but then just like I could learn a thing or two on editing, the same way you could learn from this message a few mannerisms on how to converse, even if the person on the opposite end is a stranger. Our language is a gateway to who we are & also a reflection of our upbringing. Being polite isn't harmful. And dropping the *I* will let go some of your ego pains too. I am new to this forum but not new to writing & standing for truth. Since you're an "editor", kindly spell re-submission correctly, as I'd like to learn only the best from you. Also if you have some free time, kindly consider reading the "Be welcoming to newcomers" section on the Talk Page Guidelines once. Be lovely, spread love. Regards, Jimmy
August 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ram Janmabhoomi seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
August 2017 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Ram Janmabhoomi, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. utcursch | talk 19:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Ram Janmabhoomi. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Also, have a look at WP:3RR. If you continue to engage in edit wars instead of talk page discussions, you will end up getting blocked. utcursch | talk 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ram Janmabhoomi 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 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions alert edit
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 that 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.August 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Kautilya3 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
How smart. You first get personal with me. Revert all my edits. Issue me a block warning if I continued with my edits. Then block me from writing on your talk-page. And you come to my talk-page to write that if I can be respectful to you, I may write back on your talk page. Hahaha... Jokers running the show at Wikipedia. Absolute bullies!!!Jimmy9bond (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)