User talk:Anjali00020010
Welcome[edit]
|
June 2020[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:MRRaja001. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't understand how we work[edit]
Our articles are built on what reliable sources say about the subject. Not religious texts, see WP:PRIMARY. Devdutt Pattanaik looks like an acceptable source particularly as attributed. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I truly didn't knew about that. But,I hope you could ask that man (MRRaja001)to stop editing articles as per his wish. There must be proper reasons as well as sources for edits. Anjali00020010 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for clarifying! I truly didn't knew about that.
And kindly ignore my previous message to you . Everything between me and MRRaja001 is settled. Thanks Anjali00020010 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I am new to Wikipedia. If I have any doubts, can I ask them to you ?? Anjali00020010 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:MRRaja001. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you people for real?? Don't tell me you are still supporting that guy. Respected Sir\Mam , I request you to read the complete conversation on the UserTalk page of MRRaja001. You are putting baseless allegations on me. That guy is not correct. Just read the complete conversation of his UserTalk page please.He is a completely partial and biased editor. He adds various things from a point of view of Vaishnavism which is not right. I do not think so that a global platform such as Wikipedia would promote such behaviour. I request you to read that complete conversation then make any conclusion. Thanks. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:MRRaja001. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. bonadea contributions talk 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Unblock[edit]
Anjali00020010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't attempt any personal attacks on the the user MRRaja001.Yes the things between me and he heated up a bit because that man was continuously twisting facts to prove himself right but I did not misbehave or said ill words about him.Is this how you people work ? Whenever a person is arguing for the right thing, you guys block him/her ?. Sorry to say but your this action is not justified.You people are again being partial, you do not read the complete conversation between me and MRRaja001 and you came a conclusion that I was attempting to misbehave with the fellow editor.Respected Sir/Mam whoever has blocked me for a period of 36 hours, this is not right ..You have been biased and supporting that guy instead of being neutral.I hope you would reconsider your decision an remove this block.Thanks
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but cannot unblock you as you have not addressed the reason for your block. And do you actually not see the personal attacks you made in this request? Once again, please address content and sourcing and not people --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Block evasion[edit]
Anjali00020010, when you are blocked from editing Wikipedia, the block applies to you, the person. Creating a new account as you did with User:Anjali20010002 is not allowed. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: I understand. I am sorry. But please consider that user also. He is manipulating the articles as per his wish. Even the citations which he provided does not say such things which he is adding to the articles such as Rudra. Please don't turn a blind eye to that person.What MRRaja001 can be also reffered to as Vandalism. Anjali00020010 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Stop making personal attacks. --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Did you read my text? That wasn't a personal attack. I just stated what he was doing and as you are an administrator, you should ask him to stop vandalising articles as per his wish. I don't know why it seemed like an personal attack to you. Can people not even say anything on Wikipedia? Anjali00020010 (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator. Please take a few minutes to read the various policies that have been posted on this user talk page (or rather, links to them have been posted), most importantly the ones concerning assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. (The latter page will explain exactly why more than half of your user talk page edits are considered personal attacks, some rather mild, some severe.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrator note I have extended the length of this block as a result of the block evasion. On Wikipedia, the term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning: specifically, it refers to edits that are intended to harm Wikipedia. The key here is intention. Even if a user completely ruins an article from your perspective, that user has not vandalized Wikipedia in our sense of the term unless the user intended to ruin the article. In cases where there is doubt as to an editor's intentions, the guideline on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Accusing another editor of vandalism without evidence may be considered a personal attack. After reviewing the edits of MRRaja001, I found no compelling evidence that they intended to harm Wikipedia. I hope that this clarifies why your edits may be construed as "personal attacks". To avoid further misunderstandings, you should aim to "comment on the content, not the contributor". Mz7 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mz7: You said you reviewed MRRaja001 edits, well I don't think you know anything about Hinduism (Our Religion) ,then how can you conclude that he wasn't vandalising that specific article ? And I never said that he was vandalising Wikipedia. I just said that he was vandalising that specific article. And the latest edit he made wasn't even correct as per the citation he provided. But you people have already assumed from the starting that I am completely wrong in every scenario and that fellow (MRRaja001) is completely right. Anjali00020010 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I want to clarify that I have no view whatsoever on whether MRRaja001 is "right". My view, after considering the fact that MRRaja001 has been here for a few years and has made more than 10,000 edits across a variety of topic areas, is that MRRaja001 does not intend to harm Wikipedia. It may well be the case that his edits are incorrect and should be reverted, but that does not mean that MRRaja001 intended to submit incorrect edits. This is a very important distinction and is key to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, the policy in general is to discuss why the edits themselves are wrong, not to accuse any editor that you disagree with of vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Email[edit]
@Doug Weller:,@Bonadea:,@Mz7:I tagged you all so that atleast you can see what I have to say and what are my views and intentions on this topic.
@Auto5656: Hi, I received your email. Really, thank you for showing your concern. Also, I didn't replied you through email because of some privacy issues. To be honest, It dosen't matters to me anymore whether these people unblock me or not..... because even if they unblock me, and I edit that Rudra page, that person (MRRaja001) will again revert back my edits.
This is not the right behaviour.... He (MRRaja001) is treating WIKIPEDIA as his personal property and he isn't even considering the opinion of other people.
Reasons I opposed him are ---
1). He is editing articles in a biased way (from a single source) . He isn't even considering what other textual sources have to say. Yes, I agree that he is providing proper citations for whatever he is adding but people need to understand that these articles based on religion are not some scientific articles that people can add whatever they want based on a single source and from a single point of view. Scholars in "Hinduism" have debated on such topics since 1000s of years and still they haven't reached a conclusion. So, how can he (MRRaja001) accept only one source and neglect all other sources. "Hinduism" has 1000s of texts under it so it is kinda obvious that people cannot make conclusions from a single textual source. As I stated above, these things are not proven like science , these things are immensely based on faith so conflicts generally arise between people on such topics. And as I already told you that as "Hinduism" (Our Religion) has 1000s of different texts under it (and majority of them contradict each other at various points) , people need to use their intellect to decide which fact is more accurate than the other. And because of these frequent contradictions between scriptures of Hinduism, Scholars have been debating on such topics for thousands of years, which have led to development of various sects within Hinduism (each with their own ideologies,faiths and principles.) Presently, there are 3 major sects in "Hinduism" ; "Shaivism","Vaishnavism" and "Shaktism".
Now, recent edits made by MRRaja001 on pages such as Vayu , Rudra , etc., were based on the ideologies of Vaishnavism. Yes, I again agree that his edits had proper citations but please note that those citations were from the sources which were written from the point of view of Vaishnavas. So, it is kinda obvious that it could hurt religious sentiments of the readers from "Shaivism" and other sects. And this was the reason I asked him to revert back the edits but he didn't do it. His reasonings were completely based on "Vaishnava" ideologies and were biased towards other sects. Now, what would happen if I do the same thing based on "Shaiva" ideoligies ??? We too have our beliefs as well our texts through which we can make many edits on pages related to "Vaishnavism". If you read his user page where He and I had an argument (Under the topic Rudra on his User Talk page) , there he clearly accepted that he follows "Vaishnavism".
2).Further,I am not lying, you yourself can check edit history of that Rudra page. Few other users like *Sharmatrapti*, *BhaskaraPattelar* and few other users too opposed Mr. MRRaja001 but he removed all of their edits and added his own sectarian point of view. Now, tell me were all those people wrong ?? Is MRRaja001 the only greatest scholar on Earth right now ? If he (MRRaja001) has already decided that those articles are his personal property and he will not let anyone edit them, then I don't think there is any use for other contributors here.
3). One more thing you will notice while reading that page is that he (MRRaja001) was twisting facts. Yes, whenever he had nothing to say, he twisted facts to prove himself right.Especially, on that Rudra page, he affiliated Rudra with Vayu but the citation which he provided never says that "Vayu" (air) there refers to Vayu (God). Vayu can have both meanings (of Air and of God Vayu) but in citation which he provided, it never mentions that the word Vayu there refers to God Vayu.There (in the citaion) it simply refers to Vayu(Air).Hence, his edit of linking God Vayu to Rudra was completely wrong and biased. So, you see he is twisting facts to justify himself. And further , he reported administrators about me when he had nothing to say.
So, to be honest these things do not matter much to me. I tried my best to convince him (MRRaja001) not to do such things but he just wasn't ready to listen. As WIKIPEDIA is a global platform, these articles represent HINDUISM.
So, I did not wanted them to have any biased points from a sectarian point of view.
But It does not matters anymore now , because people here on WIKIPEDIA have already assumed that I had the intention to harm Wikipedia. Anjali00020010 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)