Arctan371

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. 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 try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 21:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta

You shouldn't do references that way. See wp:citing sources on how to do them. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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; 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. Sitush (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is basic policy - all statements made in articles must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and if there is a dispute then the first course should be to discuss and attempt to gain consensus rather than to edit war. You will note that I have opened various discussions relating to sources etc at Talk:Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta and that other people have been involved there. Those people, alas, do not include yourself. You will also note that there are at least three people who have disagreed with your edits to the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeat behaviour

Hi, it really would be better if you do not immediately return to the habits that caused you to get blocked. That you have done so is unfortunate but you could still demonstrate some good faith by discussing the matter. I mean, you'll not get your way even then unless you find some reliable sources to support the statements that are contested and until you are prepared to consider a toning-down of the unenyclopaedic phrasing that they use, but at least it would give the appearance of someone who is willing to collaborate to improve the article.

As things stand, all that your actions are.doing is hastening the deployment of a measure that really will not be to your advantage. As per the above notice, you may find yourself subject to a long-term block or a topic ban relating to Hazara-based content etc. Such measures will surely frustrate you more than the current situation and, well, they can be avoided by the application of a little bit of common sense. Please do try to understand how we operate here - a read of our Five Pillars should give you the general background. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was sorry to see your feedback indicating that you are "sad". Please do believe me when I say that I, for one, have no connection with Quetta or with the violence that is going on there. I was born and still live in Manchester and my roots are British rather than South Asian etc. Sure, I've moved around a bit over the years but never outside the UK, except for the odd holiday somewhere in Europe.

I doubt that anyone is trying to stop you from adding encyclopaedic content to the article. The problem is principally that your content cannot be verified. Can you find newspaper/website etc sources to support what you want to say? They would really need to be ones that are independent of the Hazara people but my suspicion is that there are a lot out there. For example, we already cite the BBC. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that you may find this to be a fruitful source to use in the article. We are usually wary of blogs as sources but when it is written by a Reuters correspondent and is part of a series analysing the present-day state of Pakistan, well, it should be fine. It would be good to get the article away from being just a list of incidents: they numb the reader's brain after a while and what is more significant here is an idea of the numbers involved and an exposition of the background, the reasons, the effects etc of the situation. If you need any help with using the source then just yell. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Edit warring (reverting other people's edits over and over) usually results in a block. It is customary and desirable for both parties to resolve the situation in a talk page, usually (the talk page of the article or the talk page of the other user) and reach a compromise.

You can provide a source (books, university study, news source) to your information. It is unlikely to be deleted then.

Seeing as this is a slightly ideological issue, I'd like to impart my previous experience as well. My ethnic group are also being subjected to a slow genocide in South Africa, but a few years ago, there was so little acceptance of that fact that there was only minor information of it on Wikipedia (one sentence at the time, if I recall). I gave up trying to push things I knew, because news sources didn't report it yet, and my edits just get removed without reputable sources.
One day, though, mass media became aware of the problem, and I (and others) could finally put those edits into Wikipedia. This was a couple of years ago, but having a reputable source really helps, especially with issues like these.
Wikipedia is a tough beast to fight, and if I were you, I'd rather not fight it to win, except for imparting opinion on a talk page or two.. Because it might mean you lose your privilege to edit here altogether. Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of knowledge. If you tell people you know about the plight of the Hazara, it might one day reach mass media sources here in the UK, resulting in a propagation of awareness and knowledge of the issue, and eventually an improvement of information online about it.

BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)