User talk:Jerrysharma

Welcome!
Hello, Jerrysharma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Jatav have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place   before the question. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Jatav, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jatav shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. Sitush (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've struck the above warning because you self-reverted. Please continue to discuss, taking note of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BRD. The first two of those links are policies and you must abide by them; the third is generally accepted as good practice. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush, I was adding references when I found the complete text has been reverted back. So I thought of discussing with you earlier instead of adding on my own. Lets have a free and open discussion for each of the points mentioned. I will quote references, but as you know, it is not possible to quote exact page numbers. Some text is found in more than one books. I hope you would agree to this, we could post only that stuff that is acceptable to all.

Jerry Jerrysharma (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks Fut.Perf., This sounds great..!! :) I guess this way the same page/content could be reviewed/approved by more than one unbiased and neutral administrators.

Can one more thing be implemented? I am talking of a mechanism, in which, if suppose majority of readers find one of the previous/older pages/content to be more useful/better and accurately represented; they could record their feedback. Something similar to a voting/ like system, for previous or for current revisions.

It is a just a suggestion which I feel could make Wiki pages even better.

Regards, Jerrysharma (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly warning
Can I give you a friendly warning please? Those malicious lies you linked to regarding Sitush and others (including me) have no place on Wikipedia, and people trying to publicize them a couple of years ago had their accounts indefinitely blocked. If you start trying to spread such malice again, you are likely to join them — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice
Linking to a blog post that makes an assertion isn't providing evidence of wrong doing. Anyone could write a blog post making any sort of allegation. If you have actual evidence, you could email the Arbitration Committee at Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for the reply. PhilKnight

I just reported what I found. It may be true or may be not. I searched on net and though I didn't expected, I saw a number of pages including the few i reported.

Had to search because the user wasn't allowing any updates to be done, and the content already displayed was biased. Discussions at talk page also failed. When I searched, it looked like this already happened a number of times with other users also for other pages as well. Upon checking page revisions it ′seemed′ to be true.

Therefore, I submitted it not as an evidence, BUT as a report which Wiki Admin/Arbitration Team can verify, by checking previous history of the pages/accounts/talk pages etc; and IF finds them to be true could take appropriate actions. :)

In case I get any evidence, I would send it to the email mentioned in your reply. :)

Regards, Jerrysharma (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you were not getting your own way on the talk page, that does not mean the talk was not working - and if your response to that is to go looking for dirt to throw at your opponents, then that is a very dishonorable way to proceed. You were not getting your way because Sitush was right about how we develop articles here, and you were wrong - it is as simple as that. Please be warned that if you continue with your current approach, you will not be here long. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no, I'm not buying your fake smiley sincerity either, not from a man whose approach to disagreement is to post links to blatant lies about me and about other hard-working editors. The accusations were laughably unbelievable, and even contradicted themselves - no, it was not an innocent report just so that people could examine it for themselves, it was a deliberate personal attack. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)