User talk:Spasiba5

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Spasiba5. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Bobherry Talk Edits 22:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bobherry. It's so nice of you!—Spasiba5 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astara

If you get your draft article published into the main space and it passes review, then it will be an appropriate entry for the disambiguation page. I hope my reverts have not dissuaded you from editing in general. It can take awhile to learn the various rules of different pages on here. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Fyrael (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: Thanks, so can you improve the draft to make it more acceptable, conforming to the rules of wikipedia? Spasiba5 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm looking and so far haven't had any lucky finding any reliable sources that talk about this. Are you aware of any other books (aside from the Astara books themselves) or even news articles that have covered this material? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael:I don't know if you read the draft here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Astara_(the_cult)#, but I cited this as a reference^[1]. This is another: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/astara.

^ "ABOUT Astara's Book of Life Degree Lessons". astara.org. Retrieved 2019-10-26.

Yes, I read the draft. I would consider that website to be a primary source, so we can cite it, but it doesn't really do anything to establish the notability of this topic. Other encyclopedias are tertiary sources and we generally don't use those at all. Without having any prior knowledge of this "religion" (or whatever preferred term) it does seem to me like a notable subject, but we need some secondary sources that talk about it. It may take some time to find. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: So, are you saying that there is a possibility that the article will not be created due to rejection by someone in charge of allowing the creation of new articles?

No, technically nobody can stop the creation of an article. Anyone can create one at any time with any content. However, the article can afterwards be deleted if it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, an important one of which is notability. You can find a pretty good breakdown of notability requirements here: WP:GNG. It's great that you have a draft going, so that you can work on the page and get help with it without any fear of it being removed, and then when it's ready you can create the article. Sadly, I'm not exactly an expert on creating articles here and I'm looking at Help:Your first article#Gathering references for some ideas on finding sources. If you're very interested in pursuing this and want some additional help, the best places to ask for assistance are at the Teahouse and at the main Help desk. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-Spasiba5 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Spasiba5, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Zakir Naik have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hut 8.5 21:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Astara (Spiritual). Hut 8.5 22:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Astara (Spiritual) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Astara (Spiritual) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astara (Spiritual) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Spasiba5! You created a thread called Created article - need help at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to National Register of Citizens. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Citizenship Amendment Act also have the same problems. You are now WP:Edit warring after having been reverted once. Please follow WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Spasiba5! You created a thread called Help with what I feel is right at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your addition to Religious conversions in Pakistan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted articles

Please do not recreate articles that have been deleted following due process. In this case there has also been a discussion on the talk page of the related argument that did not provide any support for recreation. Any further attempts at recreation will be regarded as vandalism and treated as such. You may, of course, created a Draft article and submit it for review in due course. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "regarded as vandalism" is a bit harsh, Velella, but the draft suggestion is sound. Spasiba5, please note that being unresponsive while continuing to edit war the recreation is likely to result in sanctions — specifically, you being blocked from the article for a while.Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 09:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the draft, Spasiba5. Good on you. El_C 09:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deen Mohammad Shaikh moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Deen Mohammad Shaikh, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JK (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Religious conversions in Pakistan (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spasiba5! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Thanks. At the link you gave me to read, it says that I can paraphrase the sentence/s so that there is no "substantial similarity". Can I?—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way we do it is we find some source material, which could be high-quality websites, books magazine articles, etc. Then we re-write the material using our own words. Then add a citation showing that the source confirms what you have said. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that in most cases where it was claimed that the girls had eloped with their Muslim partners, they were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them. Some Hindu girls, generally from economically better off families, elope with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages did not last long. The links to their families were cut off and these females were then co-erced to marry another Muslim or pushed into marriage rackets.^[1]

According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, a cleric accused of forced conversions, many Hindu girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves, but they are not converted.^[1]

Most of these females are either widows or extremely poor. According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, the government is supposed to look after all Hindus and others, but they come to us when they do not get help from the government.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Sindh's Stolen Brides". Outlook. 23 January 2006. Retrieved 14 February 2020.

No. That's not been paraphrased at all. It's almost identical to the source.

Source says:

In many cases where it was claimed the girls had eloped with their Muslim partners, the HRCP found that most were, in fact, abducted, forcibly married to Muslim men or sold to them. There have been cases of Hindu girls, usually from economically better off families, eloping with their Muslim boyfriends. Rehman says in most cases such marriages didn’t last long. With links to their families cut off, the girls were subsequently forced to marry another Muslim or sucked into marriage rackets.

Your proposed edit:

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that in most cases where it was claimed that the girls had eloped with their Muslim partners, they were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them. Some Hindu girls, generally from economically better off families, elope with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages did not last long. The links to their families were cut off and these females were then co-erced to marry another Muslim or pushed into marriage rackets.

Overlapping content is highlighted in bold. This is a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages do not last long. The links to their families are cut off and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim or pushed into marriage rackets.—Spasiba5 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, because it presents the same ideas, in the same order, using almost identical wording. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source document. Think about what you want to say. Write it without looking at the source document. What are the main points you want to convey? say it in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.—Spasiba5 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I have changed every word!—Spasiba5 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've still kept the original sentence structure and presented the same ideas in the same order. It's still extremely similar to the source.— Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I give up. It looks like I can not do it. Why don't you formulate those sentences the way you feel it should be (I could at least learn)? Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the main points you want to convey?— Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I want to convey all that is in my first quotation here in green (where I have cited the references). Please help. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to write your own original prose. I don't think this is something that can be taught. At least it's not something I know how to do. I am not a teacher. — Diannaa (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, the source says:

In many cases where it was claimed the girls had eloped with their Muslim partners, the HRCP found that most were, in fact, abducted, forcibly married to Muslim men or sold to them. There have been cases of Hindu girls, usually from economically better off families, eloping with their Muslim boyfriends. Rehman says in most cases such marriages didn’t last long. With links to their families cut off, the girls were subsequently forced to marry another Muslim or sucked into marriage rackets.

My last proposed edit is:

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.

I have changed the order as well as every word. For example, my first sentence begins with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan while in the source it doesn't. So why are you still against accepting that paraphrase as "upto the mark"? The matter at the link you provided above says that paraphrased sentences are allowed!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly said that presenting the same material in the same order, using the same sentence structure, while only changing a few words, is a copyright violation. That's what you're doing, even with the latest attempt. — Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much of your proposed addition is relevant at Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan or Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan ? It is off-topic, because it's mostly about abduction and forced marriages, not religious conversions. There's a little material in the source article about forced conversions. One cleric denies that he is doing forced conversions of abducted women, and one abducted woman says that she felt she had to convert or receive no assistance from her husband's family when her husband died. That's the subject you want to talk about at Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan and Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, which is the two places where you added this content.— Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is about, forced conversions! There are 5 matches for the word forced in the reference cited. — Spasiba5 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, is this at least OK? "It was found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some are exploited by marriage agents"—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That version still has a too much overlap with the source. Here's how to re-write the first sentence: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that many girls who had been presumed to have eloped had actually been kidnapped, and were later sold or forced to marry Muslim men.

But it doesn't mention the topic of forced conversions, so it's not a good addition to Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan or Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan.— Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Diannaa, so you finally gave me a sentence I can use. Now the cited reference says, "When a Hindu is forced to become Muslim, such a ruckus is made that if the young kidnapped girl appears in court, the fanatics yell, scream, throw rose petals in the air and follow the youth into the building so that she’s intimidated and can’t speak," and "Isn’t something very, very wrong here? Suppose the poor girl was forced into changing her religion and marrying one of the assailants so that they get off the hook? Can’t the state prosecute the four on its own, for their original crime of rape?" However, I plan to avoid mentioning the last 2 quotations and just add what you quoted last, just after a sentence that contains the word, "forced conversion" to the forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan article. Are you OK with that?—Spasiba5 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that it's off-topic since it's not about forced conversion. So I think you know my opinion already— Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, then I will use the sentence you quoted and add, "when the young, abducted, Hindu girl who has been forced to convert to Islam appears in court, the fanatics create a great brouhaha and follow her into the building due to which she gets intimidated and is unable to speak" and cite just that one reference as both sentences are from the same source. Is it OK (I wrote that in my own words)?—Spasiba5 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:A pamphlet offering money to Muslims at different rates for victimizing girls of different Hindu castes for Love Jihad.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:A pamphlet offering money to Muslims at different rates for victimizing girls of different Hindu castes for Love Jihad.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:A pamphlet offering money to Muslims at different rates for victimizing girls of different Hindu castes for Love Jihad.jpeg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:A pamphlet offering money to Muslims at different rates for victimizing girls of different Hindu castes for Love Jihad.jpeg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Jaggi Vasudev shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
WP:1RR on the page. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my first edit to that article. I just removed unsourced statements!—Spasiba5 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba5, I have corrected above. Please read WP:1RR, the next revert will get you blocked. Second it was reliably sourced, and you are WP:CENSORing content that you think is not showing the subject in good light. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply on the "Talk" page of that article. — Spasiba5 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanjavur Marathi people

Hello, I'm Mr.Sarcastic. An edit that you recently made to Thanjavur Marathi people seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Sarcastic, that edit you made there reverted all that I had done. If you observe what I have done, you will see that I have just corrected the links - for example, I corrected the link from Marathi to Thanjavur Marathi, Maratha Empire to Thanjavur Maratha kingdom and so on, so will you please revert what you did?—Spasiba5 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed what you have done you are repeatedly using the word Thanjavur again and again while it's not necessary to address again and again and their Thanjavur Marathi is a dialect of Marathi not an independent language so they are speaking a variant of Old Marathi. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to North East Delhi riots. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.

Your source did not support your claims, Your edits has been removed and you are warned not to repeat this. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please read WP:RFCBEFORE first and comply with the conditions. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain link for discussion. There is an ongoing discussion where editors are working to improve and reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Instead of participating you are misusing the RFC procedure. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 14:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Moved from Talk:North East Delhi riots

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been reverted here. What is wrong with it? A lot of users are complaining that that article is one sided. Some editors like DBigXray are policing the article to keep those riots from looking anti-national (and blaming others for the same). My request for Comments request is being removed. Please help!—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at an RFC was moved to this page. Please see above Your edit was reverted with WP:NOTMEMORIAL given as a reason. If you disagree with this reversion, please gain consensus for it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TE

Please confirm if you have read and understood Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 14:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since I have not indulged in any revert war lately I should not be blocked.—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you confirm that you have "completely" read and understood the whole page. (please do so if you have not). I have asked you to read it so that you can understand what is expected from an editor here. Based on my interaction with you on Jaggi's page and then on this riot, it appears to me that you are aggressively pushing a POV. Please make an effort to follow wP:NPOV. You are not getting blocked right now, but if you keep agressively pushing a side, it may lead to sanctions since these pages are on wP:ACDS regards. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 14:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! Spasiba5, 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! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 05:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on North East Delhi riots.

If you have content disputes, follow WP:DR ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 05:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop that

Stop that on Vanamonde93's page unless you want to be blocked for harassment. Read my edit summary where I reverted you,[1] and leave Vanamonde alone unless and until you have something decent, and relevant, to say. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Riot page

Hi User:Spasiba5, I see that you have added the controversial content without failing to generate consensus. Please note the page is on wP:1RR. I suggest you self revert your recent edit in the article and copy the content to the talk page to discuss it and generate consensus in support of your content. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 19:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to North East Delhi riots, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I am not going to revert your changes since 1RR is in effect, but the warning still stands. SerTanmay (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the name even before you posted here!—Spasiba5 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct at Talk:North East Delhi riots

Spasiba, high-frequency and tendentious comments. and spamming of low-quality sources (examples: [2], [3], [4]) are not helpful in a talkpage discussion, especially on an active and potentially heated topic. Please modulate your participation at the page, else you will be facing discretionary sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy to provide sources but the conduct of editors on this page clearly shows a bias of unparalleled proportions, Tahir Hussain against whom there is an active case for murder is not mentioned but the BJP leader is explicitly stated as the trigger for this riot even though there are no cases against him. All Muslims names have been removed from any incriminating position within this article is that just a coincidence. So I will repeat this again, either make the page on East Delhi riots more balanced or if you are too biased to do that then take the page down, or I see no option but to file a complaint against the editors of this page. Here is a link about Tahir Hussain role in riots, but I am hardly the first person to post such links. https://zeenews.india.com/video/india/dna-analysis-on-riot-factory-of-tahir-hussain-2266773.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuT2020 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from all pages and discussions related to Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, including the associated protests

You have been sanctioned for continued POV, tendentious and disruptive editing in this topic-area, most recently at Talk:North East Delhi riots (eg, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] from just today) despite prior warnings.

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. 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. Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to warn you about adding unreliable sources containing BLP violations (which I redacted), but I see that you have already been sanctioned for that (and more). Looking at the evidence directly above (and above that), I think that, if anything, you have been treated far too leniently up until now. As such, I would advise you not to appeal the sanction for at least a few months, while you prove you are able to edit collaboratively in other areas of the encyclopedia. El_C 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Those were copied from further up on the talk page and not posted by me originally.

Abecedare, is the sanction going to expire on its own sometime or do I have to appeal? If I have to appeal, when can I do so, that is after how many edits in other articles/months? Please let me know.—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing those links on the talk page anywhere. You may appeal at any time, but again, that isn't advised. El_C 02:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Please see the "List of Hate Speaches" by clicking here. If I can appeal, when can I do so, that is after how many edits in other articles/months? I think I can if my behavior is good!—Spasiba5 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba5, I'd be happy to reconsider the topic-ban in 6 months if in the meantime you show an ability to edit and discuss issues without the problems seen so far. On the other hand, if the problems simply transfer over to other articles or topic-areas, the current topic-ban is liable to be expanded or to be converted into a block. For completeness, I should mention that you can also appeal any of the sanctions at any point at WP:AE but, as El_C said, such an appeal is unlikely to find favor anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, I see it in that hatted section (added by some IP), thanks — I've redacted it, too. Again, you can appeal at any time, it's just isn't advised. El_C 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 18:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IndefiniteExtending block

Per this, you have been blocked ~~indefinitely~~ for one year, with email access disabled. If you would like to appeal this block, please refer to the instructions outlined in the block template above. El_C 13:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible relationship to User:Hometech

Besides the fact that this user has been banned for sock-puppeteering, the editing patterns and issues (WP:SYNTH, copying/pasting content from one article to other articles inappropriately), choice of articles to edit, and the user's talk page posts are highly reminiscent of User:Hometech, who had a few dozen sockpuppets in 2019. Buddytula (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan

Hello, Spasiba5. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Religious conversions in Pakistan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Deen Mohammad Shaikh

Hello, Spasiba5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deen Mohammad Shaikh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "ABOUT Astara's Book of Life Degree Lessons". astara.org. Retrieved 2019-10-26.

[Eloped-2] "Sindh's Stolen Brides". Outlook. 23 January 2006. Retrieved 14 February 2020.

[1]

[1]