User talk:Sfdoctorp

Welcome[edit]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sfdoctorp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! drewmunn talk 06:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Sfdoctorp. You have new messages at Talk:Twitter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

drewmunn talk 06:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Walter K. Andersen, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:The Kashmir Files that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daxserver - respectfully, the intention was to call out double standards. How is it fair that I be accused of being a "Hindu Nationalist", and those comments are allowed? This proves that point -- that if I even if I hypothetically imply someone is an "Islamist" then the comment gets removed. Moreover, I think the issue isn't label, it's that the facts I provided are a counter to the narrative that some folks insist on having. I do agree that wikipedia is meant to be a collaboration, however then the same standards need to apply to everyone. With regard to the topic itself - I am an American scholar myself, though not in this area to which I publish. I have treated clinically, a number of Kashmiri survivors. What they went through, is not fiction. I don't care about the "hindu nationalism", but to deny their pain, is for me, malpractice, and for broader society, no different than "holocaust denialism". Sfdoctorp (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody called you a Hindu nationalist, but nothing precludes us from characterizing trumped-up and politically motivated propganda emanating from the Hindutva machinery as such. The scholars discount them as such. So what are you rambling about? But calling someone an Islamist for their observation is an egregious WP:NPA infraction, and adhomimen to boot. Why don't you focus your energies on content and citing reliable sources? Original research or your purported real life expertise is immaterial, and frankly tom-tomming the same is sanctimonious. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for the Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note this covers all pages. Not just articles or talk pages. You've been doing this, you need to stop now you've had this alert. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment to a talk page. I have not been doing this routinely. I was told about a contentious PAGE ... 11 months ago. Talk is not the page people see. Its a question to other folks. We are allowed to ask questions. We are allowed to discuss. Its called "talk" for a reason. Sfdoctorp (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not.. I’ve twice been elected to the WP:Arbitration Committee that sets these sanctions. I’m have no idea why you would argue with me without reading the last link in the alert, but it says “ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces.” All pages, and anyone can see talk pages in any case. Are you clear now? Doug Weller talk 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it apply to talk pages? Who set that rule? As a donor, I would like to know. And i would like to write a letter or speak with whoever set that rule. Dialogue among us editors only seems intuitive. If there is a genuine reason why it banned and restricted to a privileged few, then I will listen for that reasoning. Otherwise, at first glance, it violates my understanding of what I have financially contributed to help build for over a decade now.

And I did read the link. I don't appreciate your tone. Sfdoctorp (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first response to me did give me the impression you didn’t think I knew what I was talking about. As you are new and obviously don’t yet understand how it works I probably should have cut you some slack. Please understand that it only requires 500 normal edits to be able to edit all pages covered, so it is not a privileged few who can edit but the vast majority. I think Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee is probably the best place to ask. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shri Thanedar. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Please understand that there are extensive guidelines around WP:Reliable Sources. I've opened discussion on Talk:Shri Thanedar with a link to previous discussion about the source. Please do not add the source back into the article without working toward consensus. Lastchapter (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]