Talk:Gurkha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Revert abuse (Edit-Warring) by User:IdreamofJeanie and User:Elmidae

--- Hi user @IdreamofJeanie, your recent reverts in different Wikipedia articles have been deemed unfit or controversial, Please read WP:STATUSQUO, WP:AGF. Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.

Also, I tried to talk to you personally on your talk page, but you instead deleted all of the message when I addressed the situation on the talkpage, I assume it's just something that you want to hide and you know you are at the fault.

Please do not abuse or misuse revert as you are seen to be doing. Thank you.

Since You stated "overlinking" as a reason for revert,

• If you personally think that I am "overlinking" then you can manually unlink the wikilinks instead of reverting good-faith edits, as per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:AGF, since there are many good-faith edits done in the same single edit.
• London could also refer to London, Ontario so stating the United Kingdom from the readers' perspective seems to be a good approach in this situation.
• Please go to the image file itself, it clearly states "Nepalese national soldiers photographed on 1885 AD by Gustav Le Bon (died 1931)" even the file name is "Nepali soldiers Le Bon 1885.jpg". There is no mention of India what so ever.
• "Anglo-Nepalese War", "Gorkha Kingdom" and "Nepali" are all nouns and should therefore be capitalized. I prefer Wikipedia to be as grammatically accurate a possible for the sake of readers.
• Again I suggest you read WP:STATUSQUO, WP:AGF.

The Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia:Consensus are in place for everyone to be fair and not for anyone to ignore or cherry-pick the policies. ---AWikiGenius (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, Perhaps if you bothered to read, and follow Elmidea's constructive comments above, instead of simply adding your same poor edit three times, then your edits might stand a better chance of not being reverted. elmidea gave you no less than 5 pointers where your edits fail to meet the standard required. Bearing in mind You are already at WP:3RR, the words pot and kettle spring to mind. If you are able to understand why your edits have been reverted, and improve your editing in line with those earlier comments, then your future edits might well be worth keeping. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

---Hi, User @IdreamofJeanie, Thank you for FINALLY replying this time instead of just deleting the messages as you did last time. You can clearly see who is at fault here based on the Wikipedia policies.

And I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, you didn't even mention why you reverted the edits or how you couldn't manually revert the "overlinking" instead you just abused the revert against the clearly stated Wikipedia policies: WP:STATUSQUO, WP:AGF.

• Instead, you just mentioned how my editing was "poor" or how you read the points written above by "Elmidea".

You can clearly tell who is at fault here, just refer to the Wikipedia policies.

• And as you said, see my "constructive comments above" as well. Please. I wrote it for you to read it. And in your own words, "Perhaps if you bothered to read".
• You stated that "Elmidea gave you no less than 5 pointers where your edits fail to meet the standard required." These are just your personal opinion and not based on any Wikipedia policies. In fact, I described and replied to those each and every point clearly in my above comments clearly based on the Wikipedia Policies.
• If you didn't understand, let me say this according to your own words, "If you are able to understand why your" reverts are not justified, and if you "improve your editing in line with those earlier comments," instead of just abusing revert, or deleting messages on talk page "then your future" reverts "might well be" justified.

And I can see that you are in no way here to understand the situation but rather to argue and throw attacks.

I tried to give my perspective but you clearly ignored all of those but instead mentioned user "Elmidea" or how my edits are "poor".

I hoped to see friendly interactions even in disputes in Wikipedia, but clearly, some people don't care about the clearly stated Wikipedia policies at all, and they can ruin it for everyone. I can see that you don't want to discuss the issue, but rather you just want to delete the messages and Warnings, abuse the revert, or edit-war. And you have yet still not mentioned the reason behind your revert abuse.

And as I said in my earlier comment, If you personally think that I am "overlinking" then you can manually unlink the wikilinks instead of reverting good-faith edits, as per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:AGF, since there are many good-faith edits done in the same single edit.

And I am having confusions here, Are you sure you are not an alt account of user "Elmidae" because you both deleted my messages: message deleted by User Elmidae and Message deleted by User IdreamofJeanie, and you miraculously came to abuse the revert button not even couple of minutes after user "Elmidae" did so and just after he reached to the WP:3RR limit. IDK it's too much to just be a coincidence here. If there are any administrators reading this I request you to please look into these two accounts if they belong to the same person. The Accounts are: "Elmidae" and "IdreamofJeanie" Thank You. ---AWikiGenius (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I hardly know where to start with this rambling heap, so here is just the most obvious bullets off the top:

• Communication about a specific article is supposed to take place on the article's talk page. I will continue to remove the pointless type of "message" you left me on my talk page (as is every user's right - you can do the same on yours). The discussion is here.
• Being reverted by two different users is primarily an indication that multiple users disagree with you. Wading into accusations of sock-puppeting should be way,way down your list of priorities, and does nothing to enhance your credibility.
• As for WP:AGF: that means that editors are required to assume that other editors are doing what they believe is beneficial to the encyclopedia, i.e. that they are not actively vandalizing. I don't doubt you are acting in good faith. That does not mean that your edits are good and/or useful; in fact, they pretty clearly are a very mixed bag. From this follows that they can be
• reverted. You seem to be under the impression that reversion is only for vandalism; it is not. It is for disagreement, which is what we have here.
• The overarching policy guiding what is going on here now is WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss. In plain terms it means that any editor may make a bold edit (you did). Any other editor who disagrees is entitled to revert that edit (I did). Then the pre-edit version (that is the WP:STATUSQUO that you are going on about) is retained while the issue is discussed on the talk page (what we are trying to achieve now). - What is NOT part of the package is trying to edit-war your objected edit back in until the discussion is concluded and an outcome is agreed on. Stop that.
• Finally, you will not find a single editor on this project who will agree with your suggested approach of "I will throw in lots of rubbish with every good edit, and everyone else has to fix it manually rather than reverting". Other editors are not your clean-up crew. It is incumbent on you not to create more work for others, and you can depend on being told that in no uncertain terms.

Now a couple of technical bits.

• I suspect a good deal of your non-productive edits stem from being unfamiliar with the wikitext syntax. You don't need to pipe to capitalize; just use the sentence case of the article title in the brackets. If it's just an issue of the first character, title recognition is case-independent, so orange works just as well as Orange. Similarly, piping is unnecessary for plurals. Just use the normal link and stick the plural s on outside the brackets - like so: [[orange]]s -> oranges. Please do have a look through the documentation for this kind of thing.
• Overlinking is just plain discouraged. Link things once per article, not every time it comes up. Don't link common terms at all.
• (Just because it really made me facepalm: London is wikilinked - it has in-built clarification. That's what's wikilinks are for. They make explanatory additions unnecessary. You don't need to add these.)

--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

---Hi User @Elmidae, thank you for answering this time, instead of just deleting my messages as you did last time. So should I listen to you or the Wikipedia policies? Please make me clear because it clearly states in WP:STATUSQUO that, revert is "for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.". If you disagree with these Wikipedia Policies simply because you think you are "not your clean-up crew" as you stated, then talk to the respective administrators, not with me. I didn't create the Policies. It is you who are disagreeing with my edit, and it is you who reverted my edit. It is you who are acting against the clearly stated Wikipedia Policies. What you said in this long paragraph didn't even clarify the reason behind your revert abuse.

Yes, you can remove the "pointless" type of message that so obviously points your fault from your personal talkpage but AFTER the discussion not literally seconds after the message is left and without even addressing it, to begin with. There is a Talkpage for obvious reason. To discuss. I don't think it is there to delete any Warnings or messages that point to your fault literally seconds after someone writes it. Please analyse the name itself the "TALK page"

I am sorry that you think that my edits are "rubbish" as you stated. But it is solely your personal opinion and not based on any Wikipedia policies. It does not give you the right to revert. And I am so sorry that it's too much work for you to unlink the wikilinks manually. But the Wikipedia Policy WP:STATUSQUO clearly states "If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." "Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username." It is not me who is saying this it is the Wikipedia policy and it is up to you to not agree with the policies, not my rules.

The Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia:Consensus are in place for everyone to be fair and not for you to ignore or cherry-pick the policies just because you think you are "not your clean-up crew" OR "rather than picking through the pile to manually undo the damage one by one" is easier as you stated in earlier comments.

Being a Wikipedia editor comes with benefits and lots of work. It's not just, act against the Wikipedia Policies because I am "not your clean-up crew" or revert and fix. That's not how you conclude disputes. I find it amusing that you still don't know the obvious Wikipedia policies or idk you know it but chose to ignore it. And even after mentioning it literally multiple times, you still seem to talk against the Wikipedia Policies. And even that simply just because it's "too much work for you". or you are "not clean-up crew". Let me remind you, It is you who signed up for this, I didn't force you to.

I am sorry that I am "going on about" the Wikipedia Policy so much as you stated. Its because I thought we were on a Wikipedia website and we had to abide by the Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia:Consensus. Or am I mistaken?

I also find it rather amusing that you would rather include inaccurate content rather than manually unlinking the wikilinks that you think are "overlinked" simply because you think you are "not your clean-up crew".

About the London thing, Why are you so against mentioning the United Kingdom? Is it simply because it's too long for you to read when mentioning the UK? Whatever the reason may be, AGAIN it is just your personal opinion and does not align with the Wikipedia policies. Again as I stated earlier London could also refer to London, Ontario so, Looking from the readers' perspective it is still best to include the UK also considering the 2015 study of log data found that "the majority (66%)" of wikilinks are "not clicked even a single time" Simply adding the Wikilink is not enough. "You don't need to add these" is just your personal opinion, Nothing to do with Wikipedia Policies. And even considering that this does not include overlinking since this is the only wikilink of London on this entire page.

I am simply here to help the readers understand the article better but IDK what you are acting on these revert abuse for.

And about the "accusations of sock-puppeting" thing, I just stated what was clearly obvious. It is not just me who would assume this while so many coincidences align for the obvious. Better to be safe than sorry.

About the inaccuracies which I mentioned in earlier conversations, would you correct it? or should we leave the obvious inaccuracies in the article, just because you are "not your clean-up crew".

• You mentioned that "these are British Indian soldiers, belongs in caption", please go to the image file itself, it clearly states "Nepalese national soldiers photographed on 1885 AD by Gustav Le Bon (died 1931)" even the file name is "Nepali soldiers Le Bon 1885.jpg". There is no mention of India what so ever.
• "Anglo-Nepalese War", "Gorkha Kingdom" and "Nepali" are all nouns and should therefore be capitalized. I prefer Wikipedia to be as grammatically accurate a possible for the sake of readers. And you stating "None of these are necessary OR desired" is simply your personal opinion.

And the worst thing of all this is that I feel like you are not even revert-abusing for the accuracy of this article by looking at some of your discussions on this talkpage and your edits. You are so adamant about mentioning India even when it's inaccurate while clearly this article is not about India at all. Please correct me if I am wrong. ---AWikiGenius (talk)

(please observe some indenting, otherwise this will become even more incomprehensible than it already is)

I'm going to do you the favour of not responding any further to the paranoia, the nationalist projection, or the continued clapping of hands over the ears and going "na-na-na" when it comes to reverting and WP:BRD. You are going to have a jolly old time on WP if you think that a robust misunderstanding of WP:AGF is going to make you immune to reversion. You will be reverted, many times, as is every single editor on this project; and the more so if you keep making big mixed edits that are of - shall we say - heterogeneous quality. But ultimately that is your problem, not mine.

To stick to the issues at hand in this article:

• About the Le Bon potograph: fair enough, that looks like it is correct.
• You don't need to pipe for upper case. Just use the article title: Gorkha Kingdom. Done. You don't need to pipe for plural. Just attach the plural s outside. Done. You don't need to pipe to include an article in the link; don't include the article. You can find all of these at MOS:PIPE.
• London; London, Ontario. Hmm. I seem to discern a difference in these links that is obvious even without clicking on them! Eh, must be my imagination. And of course nobody would ever assume that this refers to the capital of the British Empire, rather than a small town in Arkansas or Ohio. But whatever, by all means exclude that dread possibility.
• I'll assume that the WP:OVERLINK thing has been communicated, as has the AD/CE issue (MOS:ERA).
• And as pointed out, "South Asian of Nepalese descent" vs "Nepalese" has been talked over here quite a bit, and if you have issues with that, please take it up in a dedicated discussion; current consensus is clear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)