User talk:Noughtnotout
Welcome!
|
January 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm Summichum. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dawoodi Bohra, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. Summichum (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Summichum, you seem to feel a lot of my points need removing but I am not getting any reasons as to why. Would be grateful if you could explain. In the interest of neutrality both points of vew should be shown but you have not even maintained references from the Quran itself.
Which reference are you referring to above? I'd be interested to know why you felt that was unreliable whilst on the other hand the following - The practice of Sajda (Prostration) was started by 51st Dai Taher Saifuddin and went to the extent of claiming that he is “Elahul-Ard” (God on earth) [1] in which the source material is entirely one sided is considered acceptable. Indeed the claim being made has not been given a verfiable source.
Look forward to hearing from you. Have a good day.Noughtnotout (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "oppressive". Retrieved 10 January 2015.
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! Noughtnotout,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Charles (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Articles on the Dawoodi Bohra are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA
[edit]
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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲水 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
January 2015
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra
[edit]
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk
You have been sanctioned because you are unable to edit neutrally on this topic. You declare one party to the DB succession controversy to be the winner without making any effort to get support from others on Talk
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- despite my repeated queries to you as well as the editor Summichum I have not had any specifics with regards to why my edits are reverted and now this ban.
I have given you specific instances of how the articles in question are all heavily weighted against the community and also the leader. I have neither removed those arguments nor suggested they are untrue or falsified. What I have done is provide facts from reputable sources to show how things stand at the moment. I have not "declared any winner" in the succession dispute. I have merely stated the views of various political and media institutions who are acknowledging one party as Syedna and this is pertinent to the reader. He has all of the facts at his hand. Without these mentions it would appear the community is operating in limbo and that would be a misrepresentation of facts. I find it a little disconcerting that you are quite happy to accept this bias in the article and are not accepting any efforts to give it neutrality based on fact. None of the views are my personal opinions. Feel free to point out any you think are. Noughtnotout (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia relies on WP:CONSENSUS to find the right answer in difficult situations. Since you've never posted on an article Talk page to ask for support from others, it seems you don't understand our model. You already arrived on Wikipedia knowing the right answer about the Dawoodi Bohra succession, and you didn't want to hear what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTc
Really? I arrived knowing the truth about the succession? How do you determine that? I did in fact write on the talk pages of Dawoodi Bohras where there is a consensus of opinion to include the points i made yet you have banned me from that too? Why? And where is it stated that he is the successor by me? I have merely cited facts and supported them with refrrences from the PM of India, national news organizations and the community itself on the ground. How is any of that my opinion? Along with that I have mentioned the online poll and other references suggesting greater support for the other claimant. I think you need to rethink this ban Ed because right now your Wikipedia articles are deeply flawed, heavily biased and totally anathema to the model it should be representing.
- I was mistaken in thinking you had never used an article talk page. You did post to an article talk page here, though it was about sajda and not about the DB succession. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- which shows I do understand the model. I do not arrive with the truth. Please lift the ban. I am more than happy to consult on future changes. Its clear you have not been in a position to check through the changes before taking the ban decision and i have furnished arguments and references for any point that has been made.
- If you wish to appeal, see the instructions at Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. You can file this at the WP:Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- which shows I do understand the model. I do not arrive with the truth. Please lift the ban. I am more than happy to consult on future changes. Its clear you have not been in a position to check through the changes before taking the ban decision and i have furnished arguments and references for any point that has been made.
- the fact that you used talk page for.sajda issue proves that you already new the rules and highly probable that this might be another sock account as dozens of socks have already been detected on bohra articles. Inspite of knowing this you reverted that syedna issue twice.01:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am getting to know the rules but I do not know them fully. This is not a sock account (which I'm assuming to mean being puppeted) and I don't see why all of my work is being perceived through a negative eye WP:AGF regardless of what may have gone on before. I did not revert the Syedna article at all - I added detail and references to both viewpoints. I have written on your talkpage and received no reply. Kindly lower your sanction to allow posting on the talk pages until such time as you deem appropriate.
TWA
[edit]
|
Hi Noughtnotout!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot |
starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Violation of your topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra
[edit]Please cease editing the Dawoodi Bohra article. This violates your ban, and it is risking a block. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications if you disagree with the ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have appealed and the appeal received two comments and then was just left to stagnate - that was months ago. I have asked you directly not once but on numerous occasions to repeal the ban but it got to a point where I was not even given the courtesy of a reply.
No ban should be indefinite. This one has already been in place for over a year. You yourself applied and it is something I should at least have the expectation of having it end but there is none. I complied with the request to work on other pages but there was no recognition of it. Your appeals process cannot work if decision making people involved in it simply ignore it. As you can see - the edits are all within Wikipedia guidelines and requirements - not one sided opinions or blog references but actual factual references that reflect facts about the community - if there is anything that isn't then kindly point it out as I am happy to learn.Noughtnotout (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, an admin restored your AE appeal from the archives to get a decision. The appeal was formally closed here in June 2015: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Noughtnotout. As you may read there, some people would give you another chance if you established an editing record on other topics. So far you have less than twenty edits on anything else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I did not have any notification of any of this by email so how would I know I am not sure. Your own comments are frankly very distressing. I discussed this topic at length with you and answered many of your queries - it seems you are intent on reading what you think I am saying instead of what I am saying. Not a single one of my edits occurred without a reference and you have written there that you issued the ban for an edit in Dawoodi Bohra when in fact you issued a ban for an edit in a separate article on Mufaddal Saifuddin. It was not for a 'large edit' but in fact for adding the word 'acknowledged' which you inferred as being a declaration of a winner - which I have repeatedly stated it was not and was not meant to be. Not one instance of my presumed POV bias has been shown. Its just simply a case of it it seems positive then it must be a bias - whilst the reverse does not apply.Noughtnotout (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing from you again. Mufaddal Saifuddin nominated as Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University [1]
Meets with Indian PM Narendra Modi, [2]. Tell me, if you will be so kind, who else is expected to write 50 random entries in Wikipedia before he/she is allowed to write on something he/she knows about?Noughtnotout (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)