William772

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Telugu language has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Telugu language was changed by William772 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899844 on 2017-01-25T11:40:48+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Psiĥedelisto. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Telugu language, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In particular, "refer to history books" is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Before you make a contentious change, you have to say exactly which history book, written by who, in what language, and on what page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Refer to

This book by the Archaeological Survey of India published in the year 1894 clearly says that Srikakulam is the first capital. I hope it is an enough reference. There are several authentic books on it. Please let me know. I am going to make the appropriate changes to the article again with references. Thank you

Sure, William772, go ahead! Make sure that you use the "Cite" feature and put the <ref> right after the statement. I hope you were not offended by my message, I just wanted to let you know that on Wikipedia, saying "I found it in a history book" is never enough, we must say "I found it in X History Book written in 19YY by author ZZ on page PP." Thank you very much for your contribution to Wikipedia. If you format the reference correctly, and if editors who know more about the topic agree, it is likely to stay in the article for generations to come. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References

William772, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi William772! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Telugu language

Hi William, welcome to Wikipedia. I didn't realise you were a new editor. Or, I would have given you a welcome message sooner. I would encourage you to look through the content policies of Wikipedia, starting at the "Five pillars" links.

I am afraid your revert here, with an edit summary like "You think a 1894 referenced source from Archaeological Survey of India takes higher precedence than an unknown author from 1970s. Rather have both." constitutes WP:Edit warring. When an edit is reverted, you are advised to open a discussion on the talk page and reach consensus before reinstating the edit. Since you are new, I will open a discussion for you. However, please do not repeat such edit warring in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Kautilya3:

What does your prior undoing of my referenced text, rather than including yours along with mine will constitute as? I ask this as you are more experienced.

You say, my edit summary, "You think a 1894 referenced source from Archaeological Survey of India takes higher precedence than an unknown author from 1970s. Rather have both." constitutes WP Edit Warning. What does your Undo Summary, "material; this has nothing to do with etymology of Telugu" constitute as. It does not matter if someone is new or old to wiki. Only the subject matter matters more in my opinion. You are welcome to add your referenced text but removal of someone's referenced (a much older, a well-documented, authentic source) subject does not do any good to the wiki.

As a person with background in Lexicography, I believe that every language has to be treated differently and Telugu and Trilinga are interrelated words and the later word is related to the Trilingadesham. Along with Etymology, the surrounding background is very important to support it. Merriam Websters gives the meaning of Etymology as "the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language" and another dictionary says, "the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning." for Etymology. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is developed by consensus. So all involved editors must agree in order for any particular to content to stay on the page. When we find that consensus is absent, we need to discuss the issues on the talk page. If we still don't agree, then there are other means to resolve disputes, which we can get to later. Please see WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Kautilya3: What you say is true only if you believe that History has to be written by the victors, and at all times victors are the more powerful and not always the most rightful and so would like to portray themselves as right . I do not see any subject related constructive criticisms in your replies and messages, rather more disgruntled opinions such as "If we still don't agree, then there are other means to resolve disputes, which we can get to later.". So much for your experience on Wikipedia. Do you have any knowledge about the article that you are talking about. My sincere question. Do you speak that language, do you have a background in lexicography, are you well versed on the subject that you are editing? Ask yourself. Include your referenced articles but please do not remove someone Else's sourced, and well referenced articles. Thank you once again. I do not want to waste any more time discussing on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was one of the first to revert you, and I want to let you know that your behavior is not acceptable. If you don't want to "waste" any more time discussing this issue, then you should be happy to let the article go back to how it was before: we discuss things until there is WP:CONSENSUS. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, that means you agree with the consensus, which is currently against you. I agree with Kautilya3's appraisal of your sources at Talk:Telugu_language#Etymology_section. Wikipedia editors are not required to be experts, lexicographers, or anything else, and arguments such as the one you made are mere appeals to authority. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter if something is true, all that matters is that it is verifiable. Please calmly, and fully, answer our concerns at Talk:Telugu_language#Etymology_section, and stop the personal attacks. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Psiĥedelisto: You are the victors. You are right. consensus, wow I did not know that! I did answer everything calmly and in the same manner as I was questioned. Please read all my replies carefully again and again. You consider asking a question as personal attack, Wow. Then what is this "Talk page" about. You cannot have a Talk page and Debate without posing "Questions" that I posed and which you consider as personal attacks. Thank you

Please explain me what you mean by "Consensus" and who determines it. You have reverted my changes again to Kautilya3. I have given the references and have a decent edit. Thank you

Thank you for another revert. I feel sick, I am out of here. Thank you for wasting 5 hrs of my life. Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you did not answer the specific questions asked by Kautilya3 at Talk:Telugu_language#Etymology_section. Consensus, described here, is how decisions on Wikipedia are made. Kautilya3 and I have found significant problems with the source you are attempting to add to the article, and have tried to ask you questions about that source. However, you did not reply at the article's talk page, but just attacked us for apparently not being as much of an expert as you. You are free to answer the questions at Talk:Telugu_language#Etymology_section, after which, if we deem that they clear up the problems we have with the source, we can consider adding the material back to the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Psiĥedelisto: Posing questions means "attacked us", I think I am understanding "How Stuff Works" and why so. Thank you and Have more fun.

Posing questions is absolutely fine, but posing questions about the merits of other editors is disruptive and not allowed. On Wikipedia we are always expected to comment on content, not on the contributor. No matter how experienced you are, everything you write on Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable sources that say what you claim that they say. If your sources are questioned, you should not take it personally or ask the other editor who they are to stand up to an expert such as yourself; rather, you should answer their questions, and, if need be, find more sources to help back up your claim. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So you think Kautilya3's justification of "material; this has nothing to do with etymology of Telugu" to undo my sourced edit was a merit-ful question to a lexicographer. If you go back and look at the history clearly, I originally changed the 6 month old inaccurate snippet mentioning Srisailam instead of Srikakulam as the capital. For six months you and kautilya were no where looking at the article and did not remove the so-called "this has nothing to do with etymology of Telugu" of some guy with the mention of Srisailam as the capital. Now when I corrected it to Srikakulam and even after I changed Etymology to Etymology and Background, the great editors found some work to do. Awesome! Neat! This reminds me of the HowStuffWorks again. Have fun bud (I hope you don't call that something else in some wiki terminology)!

Thank you for your contributions, but just as two wrongs don't make a right, you making one, ten, or even hundreds of good changes is not evidence that this particular change is also good. I agree with Kautilya3's edit summary, yes. Just as the Queen of England is not allowed to add poorly sourced statements about the British royal family to Wikipedia, a lexicographer is not allowed to add poorly sourced statements about etymology. With all the time you are wasting boasting about your expertise to anyone who will listen, you could have addressed our concerns ten times over, and you are still welcome to do so. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Psiĥedelisto: I think you seem to seriously have a problem. Don't count me to reply to you again. I am done this time. You say poorly sourced. i have sourced it and you have accepted it well before kautilya undid the one that I sourced and which you accepted. Now you are telling me that I am wasting time, previously you are worried that I said I wasted time. You are really Psiĥedelisto. Thanks bud. This time have fun for the last time, and don't count on me to come and reply you as some "Editors" seem to have no other work except commenting for days on my sourced snippet.

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Telugu language‎. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)