QuillThrills
Welcome!
editHello, QuillThrills, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- How to avoid a conflict of interest
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Daisytheduck quack quack 02:28, 5 September 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 special powers 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 practice;
- 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.
Edit-warring
editYou have reached WP:3RR at Bhagavad Gita; continued edit-warring will get you blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- My edits on the page have been de novo, good faith, well-cited and well-reasoned edits, each linking to a specific issue I had with the previous version with specific wikipedia policy/guideline links and extensive discussions in the talk page about. The talk page is proof of this as is my edit history for any third party to consider. The nice thing about wikipedia is the transparency of all this. QuillThrills (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @QuillThrillsYou are dealing with a very vile bad faith editor known for pov pushing. I provided my input but ill rather you dont engage with him anymore or they will distort more pages in frustration. Its a western platform afterall.Leave it DangalOh (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for contributing to the discussion I've brought up. I don't actually get frustrated by any of this and I continue to assume good faith until I'm proven wrong. It's incredible how much of his day User:Joshua Jonathan puts into Wikipedia - his dedication to the site is commendable. But any user including he can expect me to challenge issues where I see for example, inaccessible ideas being used in the lead (eg non-brahmanical in gita), original arguments being synthesized from multiple sources , undue weight being given to quotes by non experts representing fringe or biased views that carry weighted, contentious language within them.
- End of the day, Wikipedia is improved by everyone's input. Editors, even experienced ones, are subject to the limits of human perspective-taking - the ability to take a step back and ask among other questions, "how would the average Wikipedia reader feel about this?" Minority viewpoints should be represented, contention should be represented, but the questions and level of details must remain within scope and the sources must be sound. QuillThrills (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was unduly harsh in my critique of Joshua. Ultimately, we are all merely human beings entangled in trivial disputes, striving to fulfill our own base desires. I wholeheartedly agree with your points and genuinely appreciate your patience—a commendable quality that I must admit I lack. Nonetheless, I still hold onto some hope that Joshua will become more friendly and understanding. I encourage you to continue engaging with him. I will refrain from further involvement due to my own shortcomings. regards, DangalOh (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- user:DangalOh I welcome you to engage wherever you find interest and wherever you see issues in editing including if it is an issue with some of my edits. Your viewpoint on the Gita and War discussion was indeed helpful - it helped affirm that others also agreed that instance of Rao's quote was an example of undue weight being given to an extreme minority nonexpert view. QuillThrills (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was unduly harsh in my critique of Joshua. Ultimately, we are all merely human beings entangled in trivial disputes, striving to fulfill our own base desires. I wholeheartedly agree with your points and genuinely appreciate your patience—a commendable quality that I must admit I lack. Nonetheless, I still hold onto some hope that Joshua will become more friendly and understanding. I encourage you to continue engaging with him. I will refrain from further involvement due to my own shortcomings. regards, DangalOh (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @QuillThrillsYou are dealing with a very vile bad faith editor known for pov pushing. I provided my input but ill rather you dont engage with him anymore or they will distort more pages in frustration. Its a western platform afterall.Leave it DangalOh (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi QuillThrills! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
-- 15:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 27
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Puranas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sriti. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)