User talk:Discoraccoon

Hello, Discoraccoon, 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! Potatornado (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note
I noticed your changes at Hadiya court case. Please slow down. Please understand article lead is not the place to put all the information. As per wiki guidelines, put the details in the body of the article and lead should be condensed summary. Some of your edits are adding too much details to the article lead which is unacceptable for the encyclopedia article. Also use due balanace guideline of wikipedia. Also statement made outside the court can not be included e.g. opinion by some police or fringe theories and allegations outside do not carry enough WP:BALANCE, submissions made to court under oath (verbal or affidavit) caryr much more weight than the noise outside, hence inclusion of some allegation against some hindu org (there was nothing submitted against those in the court, incldue them back in future if and when an under oath evidence is submitted against those in this case). NIA statement to SC under oath/affidavit during this case regarding PFi, SDPI, Shafin and Zaina, etc meet all the criteria, Please slow down while I restore earlier edits. You are welcome to add to the main body, if fact is encylopedic. Try a bottom up approach for new facts, i.e. add to the body of article and if they have "due balance" then summaris ein the lead, but avoud your current practice of adding everything to the lead itself (e.g. Hadiya appeared in Hijab, etc these are already covered in main body (hapened outside court and she did not submit anything about this to the court) and it is not worthy of inclusion lead as she already said in the court she converted on her free will (this is worthy of inclusion in lead and it is already there). Please avoid too much rework, this is not holy war. I dont care religion, etc but I wish to see a fact based balanced article. Blanaced is not balance of hindu vs muslims, but balance of hard verifiable facts of the court case, specially the ones submitted under due weight, otherwise it leads to avoidable edit warring and will have to get logged in admins to revert my all changes. Look forward to a constructive collaboration. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "fringe theories". Please also tell me what you mean by "statement made outside the court can not be included". Can not be included where? Discoraccoon (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please also include all of this in the talk of the wiki page itself. Discoraccoon (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me explain more here. I am assuming your edits are in goodfaith. I will help you understand some concepts better. This article is about the court case. So include the submissions made under oath to the court, exclude everything else specially only allegations, like you removed PFI connection to SIMI and ISI (those can be added back only if NIA had said so in its submission). Apply same and consistent criteria to own and others edits. Tangential edits like adding fringe hindu elements/org that were not discussed (not submitted to court under oath), keep those out same way you kept PFI's connection to ISI. Same way feminist stuff, fringe hindu element, fringe theories against hindu or islamic outfits, unverified supporting or opposing allegation and unverified statements made outside the court need to stay out of this article about the "court case", include it later if they make submission to the court. Outside noise stays out. If you are passionate about some of these topics, then you can make a new article on some of these, wiki will not delete those articles if they meet the notability criteria (in addition to verifiability, balance, due weight, etc).


 * Too many people making too much noise, impossible to put all in wiki. Encyclopedia wiki is not a catalogue of everything everyone said pertaining to the case. As per wiki guidelines, only those that meet the "due weight of balance" and "verifiability". Which means excluding even the sourced material. Court orders/decisions (made after hearing evidence from parties) carries more weight than the statement of evidence under oath. Statement of evidence Statements made under oath to the court carry more weight than filing a police case. Statement of police/authorities/organsiations carry even lesser weight than the court evidence. Statement of more noteworthy and competent authority, specially unbiased one, have more weight. That is why amply sourced material from reputed sources is also excluded if it does not mean the due balance as explained above.
 * Also try to start editing main body of the article. Yesterday, I spent 16 hours FACT CHECKING all the sources and edits by earlier editors in bottom up step-by-step manner and made changes on the body of the article (not to article lead). Once all that was done, I made additional changes to the body of article from some new sources. I spent 14 hours fact checking others work, 1 hour to add my material based on new sources to fill the gap, 1 hour to clean up lead. Do not add direct to lead, build the article first. Remember again, wiki is not repository of everything everyone said.
 * I do not like to burn the heart of other passionate editors by undo and reverts and I do not like to silence them by punishing with warnings and bans by manipulating wiki system of warnings, it drives good and passionate people off wiki, so what if you and me had difference of opinion, you deserve my kindness and I will help you understand wiki guidelines instead of slapping those to silence you. I want to nurture your passion and once you learn the ropes, you will actually be a good asset to me and wiki. Your edit in the main body of article [|here] added value, but lot of your edits become disruptive but I do not want to revert all, because I do not want to discourage you. I will instead recheck all your edits one by one, and keep the good ones and remove other. Unfortunately this is lot of clean up. I will have patience. I do not want to start with mass revert or start using disruptive warnings, etc. it is part of your learning process in goodfaith. You will get there. Slow down and try to observe and learn more. In addition to verifiability and due weight, edits should also pass the "test of time" so that over a longer time they survive, otherwise many novice editors will keep coming and keep making mess. They will feel less inclined to make changes it article is based on hard facts in the court. Apologies in advance some of the things I might have to cleanup, revert, etc.
 * Wiki is not a place to serve islam or hinduism. Those editors get banned. Wiki is place to serve wiki, based on hard verifiable facts 9even if those are unpleasant). Balance in wiki does not mean balancing/appeasing Hindus and Muslims in article to include stuff to mollycoddle them. Balance in wiki is balance based on important (as I explained above e.g. court evidence has more weight than outside statements, court order has more wight than multiple statements/evidence, etc)

202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You should have spent some more time fact checking, I think, because I removed a bunch of information that was either unreported in the links you had given, or you had missed out crucial details. Please put in more time.

Discoraccoon (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, can we talk about this in the talk section of the wiki page itself?

Discoraccoon (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, instead of [[WP:BRD}} or repeatedly rewrite each other's with variations, I will recheck all your edits one by one. This a longer and more time consuming route. But it is better route to engage you more constructively. Remainder again to please use bottom-up approach and consistent criteria (apply same to Hindu orgs and feminist opinion that you applied to PFI link to ISI, etc, they all be kept out if not submitted to the court).
 * Remember passion is good, but that does not count for inclusion of material. Only wiki criteria does. None of us owns it. Wiki guidelines also suggest building consensus, but not at the cost of verifiability, balance and due weight.
 * For now I stopped making changes to slow things down, avoid edit warring, and antagonism. I do not want to make changes while you are having a go. It makes more mess to simultaneously edit and angers flare and eventually one party loses it. Better to take longer and more patient route to help others learn, so they will be allies in future on same or other articles even if differing views. Multiple perspective add to the quality, specially if editors are being reasonable and fact checking each other usng wiki criteria (not biased passion, personal preferences, etc).
 * I will come back after an hour or so to recheck all and make appropriate changes. For review of your edits, I will retain stuff that makes sense, I will restore things that met the wiki guidelines, I will omit my own stuff that fails on the wiki guidelines as per any feedback/reasons you might have given for omission, etc. But, please slow down, stick to the bottom-up-approach and do not add things directly to lead.

202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)