User talk:Ajñavidya

Welcome!
Hello, Ajñavidya, 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:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TFD (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much.  Ajñavidya (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 

June 2019
Your recent editing history at Carlos Maza 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O3000 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Carlos Maza
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Carlos Maza, you may be blocked from editing. ''You cannot continue to insert your preferred language into the article. You must reach consensus on the talk page first. If you are unsatisfied with the discussion on the talk page, you can seek an alternative form of dispute resolution.'' Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

June 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Carl Benjamin, you may be blocked from editing. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Carl Benjamin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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: 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. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of paradoxes; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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: 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. - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please
I saw this edit. Please do yourself the favour of not doing anything like that again. You blatantly misrepresented the situation on the talk page in your edit summary by falsely suggesting that your viewpoint had gone unchallenged when the truth is that you were challenged repeatedly and eventually people simply got fed up with arguing with you as it wasn't getting anybody anywhere. You must have known that there was no consensus for your change. The edit itself is egregiously POV. You need to either drop the stick or, if you prefer, you can take the stick home with you and wave it about somewhere else. Either way, this sort of tendentious editing does not belong on Wikipedia. You have already had a short block for it. So, please just stop before somebody decides that you are WP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Carlos Maza. DanielRigal (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Tucker Carlson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".  by you was not a minor edit. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Comparison of Unicode encodings. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. LiberatorG (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Tucker Carlson. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not post on my talk page
Do not post any comments on my talk page anymore. You have repeatedly left inappropriate template warnings, and have now started to leave template messages about (1) changes that you already left templates about, (2) changes to which only you object, and (3) include entirely unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS of canvassing. If you post on my talk page or make accusations about me without supporting diffs, I will take your harassment to ANI. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, I understand your concerns at the Tucker Carlson page but please watch the reverts. You are at 3 right now. One more will put you over the 3RR limit. I'm not going to endorse many of the edits at that page but I think Wally was correct at least about some of the material. They removed it in a way that suggested something other than careful consideration. However, when I looked at the sources in detail I had to say they were right (but they were wrong in that they didn't state their case at all clearly and forced me to effectively justify their revert for them.

Also, personally I think it's stupid when editors "take their ball and go home" by saying "don't post at my page". I recall one admin suggesting that the more "blocked" editors the more likely the block-er was the problem vs the block-ie. However, it is their prerogative to ask you not to post at their page. I'm telling you this because I want you to keep a clean nose. Not always easy around here. Take care! Springee (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

2021 Cuban protests
In regard to this, you are an hypocrite. When it came to 'authoritarianism', opinion pieces, such as that Spanish one (Opinión), you kept mentioning and adding it in your edits to support your addition in the infobox, but when you do not like what one say, they must be removed. You are also ignoring the fact you added it to the infobox, while I added it and properly attributed in the body. I suggest you to self-revert, and let us wait what other users think, whether they reverted it again.

As for this, the given source does. Or is not closing the borders, tourism, and other restriction due the pandemic curbs on civil liberties? Or are they only in Cuba? You also had no reason to remove that "Cuba's strict measures during the pandemic, such as closed borders and no tourism, [was] praised for having greatly limited the number of COVID-19 infections the previous year but at the expense of the economy." It can be reworded, so it does not say the curbs are due the pandemic restriction (I was very careful to state "in part" but nothing is good or enough for you as compromise...), although no source does not mention any new law and the Civil Liberties Index showed Cuba slightly improved, as showed here. There was no need to revert, you could have changed or improved the wording, such as moving it or removed "also also in part due to Cuba's strict measures during the pandemic" while keeping the rest. For the removal of the embargo from the infobox, it is fine by me in light of the ongoing RfC process. You see, I am actually consistent...

Davide King (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , don't be unrespectul. I wasn't aware that El País source is an opinion piece, and as I realized that I now consider it unfit for the article. About, the source just don't mention anything related to "praised for having greatly limited the number of COVID-19 infections the previous year, they were very strict and came at the expense of the economy". Check the source yourself: CBS News. You just cannot add information and then reasearch sources to support it, that's editing the other way around WP:Verify. On the information presented, as far as I am concerned, the Cuban government actually closed the borders pretty late and kept tourism running when the WHO issued the pandemic status of covid-19. The first cases of covid in Cuba were actually Italian tourists, but I'd need to further research on that, if relevant to the article. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not being "unrespectful" when you just lied again, as I pointed out many times to you it was an opinion piece, most recently on 21 July ("Similarly, the Spanish source is an opinion piece, which may be used for the lead or body with attribution, but it cannot be used to support what you want to add."), and yet you ignored it. "[T]he source just don't mention anything related to 'praised for having greatly limited the number of COVID-19 infections the previous year, they were very strict and came at the expense of the economy'. Check the source yourself: CBS News." My bad, the source is NBC News. Davide King (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The El País source is no longer in the article. And yes, you're being disrespectful, you're calling me names instead of trying to understand what I have to say. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But you repeatedly tried to use it to support your side, and lied that I did not warn you about it. I did not call you names, I only explained that you have been hypocrite about opinion pieces (hypocrisy is not an insult or calling names but rather "the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform"), and now you're being so dogmatic (it this calling names too? I am just stating my opinion and I apologize if it offended you but I was offended by you for some of your personal attacks about ideology, like I am being binded by ideology, and linking an article which indirectly called me an "arsehole", even though it was not your intention) in not even accepting the slightest change ("There's absolutely no reason to merge these different causes into a single one. There is a list for something" but if they are discussing the government, why it should not be merged for concise purposes?). Now you even took me to the admins for respecting the rules; it is the job of the admins to close the RfC, not yours. I did nothing wrong, and did not edit war by re-adding the embargo to the infobox like you did for authoritarianism. As far as I am aware, taking someone for a mistake (it is a mistake on your part, because I only followed the rules, which you violated in the first place) may be sanctioned. Davide King (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. I didn't asked for measures against you, all I was looking for was arbitration over . And, again, I didn't call you "an arsehole" (at this point this is ludicrous). I didn't use that word and I even hid the essay name itself behind hypertext. By the other hand, you're calling me a "hypocrite" and "dogmatic." I comit errors when I edit, yes; but as soon I realize of my errors I retreat and accept. My target is to make a good and accurate article, not engaging in neverending edit wars or endless discussion on if introducing an element or not in the infobox; such as on listing "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protest, which I still consider a waste of time because sources obviously address it. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I still took it personally, as it was uncalled for, just like you did too, so we are even. Either way, I apologize again and will avoid using words which may offend you. I hope there is some reciprocity on your part for this. Can you accept my apology and move on, as I accept yours?
 * "I comit errors when I edit, yes; but as soon I realize of my errors I retreat and accept." I showed you that I told you many times that was an opinion piece not suitable for the infobox; the only plausible explanation for why it took you so many time to realize that is that you did not full read my comments, in that case it is fine and you are justified by that, if you truly realized only on 22 July, per your comment above. But you never clarified you missed that part, so can you answer: did you miss my repeated attempts to show you it was an opinion piece?
 * "My target is to make a good and accurate article, not engaging in neverending edit wars or endless discussion on if introducing an element or not in the infobox." And you think this is not my target either? Edit war requires two users, for which you have been reverted by other users, including the admin (while I have been reverted mainly by you). It was not just on me.
 * "[...] such as on listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause of the protest, which I still consider a waste of time because sources obviously address it." Why do you ignore I simply prefer to write a more context-minded short sentence rather than just write the label? Or the fact I added "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom" and "authoritarian" and "one-party rule" at "End of Communist rule." Therefore, I believe I have been more than willing to comprise. On the other hand, you keep reverting absurd things. Why should we not use 'Cuba' and 'Cuban government' interchangeably? We do it for the United States and virtually every other country, please explain.
 * Either way, I am also more than willing to move on, are you too? If you want to prove that you too can be willing for compromise, can you at least reinstate this edit or not revert it if I boldly add it one last time? Just to see what other users think and whether they revert it (so far, only you reverted it). It is also very short and properly attributed. Let me remind you that opinion pieces are not prohibited, but they must be attributed. I did attribute it in my edit and correctly put it in the body, whereas you added the opinion piece for a key fact in the infobox. Davide King (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I accept your apologies. The problem with your comments, however, is that they are excessively verbose. You really need to concise, otherwise it's really difficult to read a textwall everytime you reply, one after the other; many times leaving no option but TL;DR to people that are truly interested in what you're trying to explain. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that, and I understand your point. As for this, "and since the consensus became pretty obvious 3 days after the RfC was started" is not a good-enough reason to do what you did, and as stated by Snow Rise, "There's WP:NORUSH here, so why would we take the extraordinary action of shutting down an RfC, just a few days in, with an evenly split !vote, with feedback ongoing? We need a strong procedural argument for that beyond that you think it would result in the better outcome for the article, because that would very much beg the question and subvert our consensus building process." Finally, you should have noted that point 2 of WP:RFCCLOSE stated "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template." This was not case as both Mathglod and I opposed it. Point 4 clearly stated "Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion. The editor removes the rfc tag at the same time." It was very clear from the beginning. Davide King (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, . I'm sorry about that too. I shouldn't have closed the RfC because, despite consensus has been achieved, I was an involved editor (both in discussion as in voting) and I unnecessarily rushed to close. I shouldn't have done that. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's okay. "... despite consensus has been achieved ..." I consider consensus to be achieved only when the RfC is actually closed, even if the ratio was even bigger, and S Marshall commented "despite well-argued dissent", which is something no one else told us. As for this, even if you are right about synthesis, I agree with S Marshall that "I would struggle to understand how best to implement that consensus. The infobox already gives 'lack of civil liberties' as a cause, and if I had my closer hat on, I would be wondering whether the community was telling me to list 'authoritarianism' as a separate cause, or whether to replace 'lack of civil liberties' with 'authoritarianism.'" I prefer to merge them, to avoid listing another cause, per redundancy, and because they are connected and provide context, i.e. what exactly of authoritarianism are protesters mainly complaining about? That is mainly one-party rule and civil liberties such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Davide King (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus is already clear, even if the RfC is not closed yet; and no dissdent can disable a consensus. By the other hand, I have explained to you before that lack of civil liberties and authoritarianism are not the same thing and you seemed to agree with me back then (read these ). Nevertheless, remember this is not the appropiate place to discuss these details, but the article's talk page. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the appropriate place to discuss these details, without taking space to the article's talk page, but we can end it here and I will just state one last thing. Just like a prime minister or president become such when they swear-in, which can be days, weeks, or even months after the election took place, consensus is official only when the RfC is closed by an admin or uninvolved user who has expertise in RfCs. This is why only when the RfC is closed are changes made to the article to reflect it, do you understand? So you may think that the consensus is "already clear" and I can agree with S Marshall's that there is well-argued dissent but rough consensus; however, consensus becomes official only when the RfC is closed by an admin or uninvolved user. About dissent, that is not what I meant to say, I quoted you that just because you and a few other users treated us and our reasoning as not worth anything, when an uninvolved admin stated they were well-argued, which is all that matter to me, not the RfC's result. And as I told you many times, I am only opposed to say "Authoritarianism" without any context; I can support more context-minded and clarifier wording such as "Authoritarianism (one-party rule and lack of civil liberties and political freedom)", or something like that, to better reflect what sources say and their diversity in wording. Davide King (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No,, the consensus in that RfC is already clear, and I personally think that it has already taken too long to close. And despite there's dissent, a great deal of it by you, I must say; "well-argued dissent" cannot nullify a consensus achieved by majority. I know that you're opposed to including authoritarianism, but this position is minority, and you must respect what the majority of editors vote for. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "... the consensus in that RfC is already clear, and I personally think that it has already taken too long to close." That is your own opinion, just do not state it as fact. I agree with S Marshall's comment that there is "a rough consensus (despite well-argued dissent) to use the word 'authoritarianism.'" If things remain this way (as noted by S Marshall, "until the two RfCs that have already been started, are closed. This is likely to be several weeks in the future", so there is still plenty of time), and I personally believe they will not change, then the RfC will be closed as there being consensus to add it, and 'authoritarianism' will be added (I would be the first to do so, following the wording suggestion you agreed, such as shortening it to "End of Communist rule"). In conclusion, even I can see that 'currently there is "rough consensus", as things stand, but the consensus in that RfC will be clear and official only when the closer will say so; that is what matter. There is no rush, and the closer should just be left doing their job.
 * "And despite there's dissent, a great deal of it by you, I must say; 'well-argued dissent' cannot nullify a consensus achieved by majority." So what? That was not even my point or what I actually wrote! Whether that will nullify "a consensus achieved by majority" (Wikipedia is not a democracy or a vote, so it does not matter how many 'yay' or 'nay' but whether they are sound, convincing, and based on our policies and guidelines) is not up to me and will only be decided by the closer; I do not think they will and I believe there will be consensus to add it. What I actually stated was that I do not really care about the result and care more about my and other users' disagreement being actually acknowledged and respected rather than dismissed outright. I did not dismiss yours and took them very seriously, while other users did not take ours.
 * "I know that you're opposed to including authoritarianism ... ." Yes, I am opposed to including that word alone, unless more sources start to list 'authoritarianism' as cause in direct quotes like The Independent did rather than "curbs on civil liberties", and as noted by S Marshall, you "are the only person who is able to distinguish 'authoritarianism' from 'lack of civil liberties.' There is no prospect of your proposal passing unless other independent people show up to agree with you on that point."
 * "... but this position is minority, and you must respect what the majority of editors vote for." I do not understand from where you got this, when I already stated I do not care about the result and I am just annoyed by you not respecting the closer by giving them all the time they need to evaluate everything. Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy or a vote, so it will be based on the arguments, not the rough number of 'yay' or 'nay.' What I will respect is the closer's decision, whatever it may be, but you are now repeatedly trying to act like there is consensus already (as things stand, I agree there is rough consensus, per S Marshall, but the RfC is not over yet) and only an admin and uninvolved, expert user can close the RfC to officially claim consensus; neither you, me, or any other involved user can do that.
 * In response to this, since I was told to wait for actual result of the RfC before opening new threads about the wording, I reply you here. Again, that is exactly why we attribute it to the government and your undue weight claim is irrelevant, as virtually all generally reliable sources mentioned it and discussing it, making it undoubtedly due and notable, especially because "it is shaping the government's oppressive response", per Jr8825. I think there have been power outages also outside that region but that is beside the point because 'power outages' was just an example, and 'social media expansion' would be another. I just hope you would be consistent in your "per source" argument. Davide King (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Authoritarianism and lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom)" would be fine by me. Davide King (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad to read that we can achieve compromise. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)