User talk:Anonymoussss202333

Welcome!
Hi Anonymoussss202333! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shuka. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Shuka 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sir,
 * I stand by my edit and it was not disruptive or unconstructive edit at all, It was a minor edit pertaining to the use of word death of a saint named shuka, He according to belief as mentioned in Wikipedia itself was claimed to achieve moksha as per a Hindu scripture named Devi Bhagavatam. Therefore, I changed the word death to disapperance.
 * Kindly elaborate as to why this action has been taken against me unnecessarily?
 * I would sincerely request you to remove this warning against me.
 * Regards Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to edit war, even if you think your edits are correct. You must use the article talk page to discuss your concerns instead of edit warring. You are free to remove this warning if you wish, but doing so is considered an acknowledgement that it was read and you understand it. I'll withdraw the report if you agree to self-revert and discuss your edits.
 * The main issue is, Wikipedia does not normally include honorifics, see WP:HONORIFIC; this is a common request of Muslims in reference to Muhammad, and it's not done for that either. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * The word "disapperance" is not honorific in strict sense. It is more appropriate in the context of the Hindu saint named shuka, Because his demise is ambiguous in other Hindu scriptures and only Devi Bhagavatam claims that this particular saint achieved moksha. So, Moksha in true sense would be more appropriate to the article as well instead of death. (Keeping aside any form of sentiments)
 * Regards Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the overall point here is that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, and do not necessarily abide by the dictates or requirements of a religion. This is something you need to discuss on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * When I made the last edit to the page, I mentioned in my edit summary of the article the reason for the same. I did try to initiate a sharing of thought, I don't intend to claim that I'm right but The editor by the username Chronikhiles did not indulge in a constructive dialogue with me and reverted my edit twice.
 * Therefore, If you feel there is need to discuss before reverting an edit, You may kindly convey to the same editor to discuss rather than quick reversions.
 * Regards Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one trying to make a change, it is up to you to defend it and discuss your concerns. If the other editor does not respond to you, there are proper ways to address that.  It does not mean that you can make the edit anyway. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, If you ask me to revert to his edit I will, But I'm utterly disappointed with these biased rules.The username Chronikhiles is not open to discussion in my opinion. If indeed the user was, He/she would have initiated a dialogue by stating PROPER REASON IN POINTS before reverting. Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that you should self-revert your edit as a show of good faith and a desire to resolve the dispute, but that's ultimately up to you. If the other editor does not engage you in discussion, there are dispute resolution channels to address that.
 * I removed the edit warring report. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I self reverted. I do not blame you sir/ma'am because you are doing your voluntary contribution to make wikipedia a better place without any edit wars and textual chaos. I appreciate that. But I sincerely feel wikipedia rules are biased.
 * Definitely, If the other editor doesn't indulge in a constructive discussion/talk, I'll seek admin support for the same.
 * Regards Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * I did not intend in any edit war. I kindly requested the other editor by politely and formally explaining to him the reason for my revision of his edit in August 2023. Suddenly, Few days ago, I recieved a notification where the same editor reverted by edit by citing "Please don't bring personal biases to Wikipedia" and in an other page as well the same editor reverted my edit without any proper citing of a valid reason by claiming "biased".
 * I did not understand what the other editor intended to convey, Therefore, I reverted to the same revised version because of lack of a proper valid reason by the editor.
 * I seek your kind support, help and guidance to resolve the issue without potential edit war.
 * Regards Anonymoussss202333 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, you should discuss your concerns on the article talk page(Talk:Shuka) with the other editor instead of just removing their edits to what you think the article should say. Please review policy about honorifics in articles- the dictates of a religion are not necessarily relevant in that regard. This applies to any religion; it is not permitted to put "peace be upon him" or "pbuh" with every reference to Muhammad. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my edits
@Anonymoussss202333 Hello. I realise it's been a few months, but since you seem to have neglected to @ me, I did not know this incident had even happened till now. I'll say my part, late as it may be. You accuse me of not engaging in constructive dialogue vis a vis your edits and not stating, "proper reason in points". Fair enough, I could have been more specific in my short descriptions. Point taken. Why did you not open a talk page discussion with me and clarify? I'd been happy to address your concerns.

I strongly believe that you were indeed biased when you wished to make edits to Harita (Hinduism) on the basis of your "belonging to the community" and wished to add honorifics (deva) to Shuka, not knowing it's discouraged under Wikipedia policy, as the administrator has informed you. If you truly wish to make Wikipedia a better place with your edits, the onus is on you to justify your changes and adhere to policy. Please communicate with whoever you have a dispute with directly, no one wants edit wars. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)