User talk:Hoodedemperor

Welcome!

Hello, Hoodedemperor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Charminar does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

November 2012
Hello, I'm Rsrikanth05. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Charminar because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Charminar
Hi, I went thru the edit in question. It doesn't conform to our Policy on Neutrality and you removed a citation which is why I removed it (again). Please discuss this on the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Charminar
Your addition to Charminar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. utcursch | talk 19:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed your content, because it is verbatim copied from other websites (twocircles.net, Times of India). Please see WP:COPYVIO. Other users have removed your content in the past, because it is not neutral (see WP:NPOV). On Wikipedia, we do not take sides, and simply present the different points of view to the reader. Also, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to maintain neutrality. We don't cite pro-Hindu websites (such as this or this) as sources; similarly, we don't cite pro-Muslim sites as sources. utcursch | talk 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalizing the article. Your reasoning is wrong: the temple is not an illegal structure according to ASI -- the expansion / construction activity is illegal. Even if the temple were illegal, it is relevant to the article. I've been trying to assume good faith, but you obviously have an agenda here -- if your reasoning is "the temple is not part of the Charminar", then why are you not removing the bit about Mecca Masjid or commercial area around Charminar? utcursch | talk 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's your argument, now? The entire controversy is that the Hindu organizations claim that the temple is old, and that's what the article mentions ("claim that..."). The citations have been present in the main article for days. Here are a few for you:
 * "While the temple took a physical form only 50-odd years ago, folklore has it that a holy stone (more like a milestone) had been laid at the same site several years ago, most likely during the Quli Qutub Shah period" The Times of India.
 * "Though it is not exactly known how a temple came up adjacent to Charminar, local Hindus believe it is as old as the monument itself." Daily Mail
 * utcursch | talk 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "....you add the temple article On 12th of November 2012 when there was riots in Hyderabad before everything was fine"? The controversy dates back to November 1.
 * First of all, neither the Bhagyalakshmi temple article was created by me, nor was the section added to the Charminar article by me. Both these were done by two other, different, editors.
 * Secondly, irrespective of who did what, the section is relevant to the article. The newspaper headlines and reports support this assertion:
 * Charminar temple dispute: high court orders status quo
 * Charminar turns into war zone
 * Charminar under police siege for third day
 * Hyderabad tense as fresh violence erupts near Charminar, 10 injured
 * Now please stop removing the content again and again.
 * utcursch | talk 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoodedemperor, you are invited to the Teahouse
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Charminar‎. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 16:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.