User talk:Cwarrior

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. Please leave your comments here. Thank you. Cwarrior (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 14, 2020: The talk page of one of the article I was editing is in the news: https://www.opindia[dot]com/2020/08/bengaluru-violence-muslim-mob-bias-wikipedia/. I thought it was interesting and a bit amusing.

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cwarrior! I am Joyson Noel and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks a lot for the info as well as the cookies :) Cwarrior (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh[edit]

WikiProject Pittsburgh		An invitation to join us!
		You are invited to participate in WikiProject Pittsburgh, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about the City of Pittsburgh and the surrounding Western Pennsylvania area. Please see the Pittsburgh WikiProject page for more information. See yinz there!

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives ExtravaSCANza[edit]

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions¹ as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¹ Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest[edit]

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic 2012[edit]

	Great American Wiknic - Pittsburgh
	You are invited to the second Great American Wiknic taking place in Schenley Plaza, in Pittsburgh, on Saturday, June 23, 2012 starting at noon! This is a chance for all of the wikipedians in the Greater Pittsburgh area to meet for an afternoon of fun and fellowship. This is a bring your own lunch event, if you have special treats you would like to share feel free to bring them. We would love to have you there!

Message delivered by Guerillero | My Talk at 22:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic area alert[edit]

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.

— Newslinger talk 20:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Which particular edits is this concerning to and what actions do I need to take? Cwarrior (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a standard notice issued to editors who demonstrate interest in a controversial topic area. In this instance, the 2020 Delhi riots article is covered under special rules (active arbitration remedies) detailed near the top of Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Many editors editing controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of these rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 03:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, I have not contributed to the said article so far. I only added a comment in the discussion about its neutrality. Cwarrior (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Edits related to the topic" - on any Wikipedia page. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits related to anything in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? That covers a lot of articles. Cwarrior (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Woody (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a bit excessive isn't it? Just considering the number of people living in those countries and thereby number of relevant articles that should be on Wikipedia about them. How do we review / discuss these sanction decisions? Cwarrior (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not excessive. Did you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan? Changes can only be made through a request for clarification or amendment WP:ARBGUIDE#Types of requests which would need you to show evidence that the sanctions aren't necessary. As a past member of the WP:Arbitration Committee and an Administrator active in this I can guarantee you that you won't be able to show that, just as no one would be able to show that we don't need the similar sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflicts, American politics, abortion, climate change, etc. They allow us to restrict editing on articles where needed, eg only 1 revert in 24 hours, or who can edit, eg only editors who have been here 30 days and have 500 edits. They allow us to ban editors from certain topic areas for being disruptive. They only exist in areas where serious problems have been shown to occur without them. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Don't cross out other users' comments on talkpages, as you did here without even an explanation. It is disruptive. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I just noticed there's an explanation right at the end of your text — a poor explanation, as there was no "slandering" in the text you struck out. But nothing in your edit summary. I have reverted. It's by no means your business to do that. For one thing, readers will assume that the text was struck out by the person who wrote it, as that is the normal use of strikeout. Just don't interfere with other people's posts, please. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am glad that you were able to find the explanation right there. Calling a Padma awardee "loon" is slandering in my opinion. But, I will leave it up to other readers to decide. Also, what are your thoughts on this revert on the talk page: [1]? Cwarrior (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ideological bias on Wikipedia 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 three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I recommend that you obtain consensus on the talk page for this material before re-introducing it into the article. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user had reverted my changes on Aug 15th, 2020 without sufficient explanations. I started a discussion on the talk page where sufficient conclusion was reached that we can discuss the claims of the bias. No further comments were added on the talk page for a week until today when multiple reverts where made by the same user. Also, I hope you have also left a similar comment on the user who was continuously reverting the edits. Cwarrior (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]