User talk:Srj.cooldude

Welcome!
Hello, Srj.cooldude, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions 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 Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This was my concern with your replies on Love jihad page. There is absolutely no neutrality in the way the page is presented instead it was outrigtly hinduphobic and turning a blind eye to real concerns and issues by dismissing it as conspiracy theory. Where is neutrality in this? It's ironic that you refer to neutrality page. It is you who needs to refer it more. Love jihad coverup is similar to the London grooming gangs coverup. The need for truth without bias is the first step towards ensuring justice. By being biased in favouring jihadi s and dismissing love jihad as just a conspiracy and Islamophobia you're promoting violence, promoting terrorism. Srj.cooldude (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SPA, WP:TRUTH, and WP:WGW  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF
Your posts from Talk:Love jihad have been deleted previously by but in case the reasoning wasn't clear enough, I'll spell it out: If you continue to cast aspersions and accusing other editors of being biased in favouring jihadi..., promoting violence, promoting terrorism, or posts incendiary comments like this or this, you will be topic-banned or blocked from editing wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * How do you explain bias without using the word bias? Please elaborate. How do you deal with editors who are biased, I quoted a reference from Times of India, but that was rejected stating not credible source but the same page has 24 references from Times of India. If this is not bias, what is?
 * It's not just me, vast majority of neutral observers find the page extremely biased towards extremists, the tone of voice in the page is also filled with one sided view, you can find several posts with the same view. Srj.cooldude (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to propose specific additions/changes to the articles based on reliable sources (and IMO, the case would be stronger if you present scholarly sources rather than media reports or youtube videos but that eventually has to be decided through talk-page discussion). And you can use the appropriate noticeboards or dispute reolution processes to invite broader input. But what you absolutely cannot do, is accuse other editors of being biased, having an agenda, promoting terrorism, supporting jihadis etc just because they have a different opinion than yours. Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If media reports or youtube videos aren't allowed then why allow it for other sections at all. Why are media reports allowed selectively from the same source? That report clearly states about NIA chargesheet on love Jihad so it was rejected.
 * As a source of information for millions, Wikipedia should be the source for unbiased knowledge, that is what I ultimately want. But unfortunately Wikipedia is not entirely free from bias, here's a report on Adani sponsored Wikipedia editors who were later banned. https://thewire.in/media/adani-group-wikipedia-articles. Very sadly such bias still exists in across several pages in Wikipedia.
 * This is not a matter of having a difference on opinion. This is about creating a wrong narrative by ignoring facts and real events, brushing aside any valid source with unjustifiable reasons but glorifying and vilifying a certain community without any reference or source. For example this line: "notions based on the assumption that the Hindu women are possessions of men, whose purity is defiled as an equivalent to territorial conquest, and hence need to be controlled and protected from Muslims" What is the source for this line? Why is this allowed?
 * There is absolutely no source for this view. But it is allowed but any source that is against this narrative is rejected even if it is a credible source. Which is why naturally anyone would suspect the bias. Srj.cooldude (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it short:
 * If you have specific concerns about an article content: discuss it (with sources) at the article talkpage or use the appropriate dispute resolution process.
 * If you have specific concerns about a particular editor: report it (with evidence in the form of diffs) at WP:ANI but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG
 * Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already raised multiple concerns in the talk page and have seen concerns raised by other users but all efforts are in vain. Any opinion opposing the view is rejected. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:DR that I linked to twice above?
 * And to give some specific pointers: With regards to your latest talkpage post, editors are more likely to be responsive if you:
 * Don't start with a assumption of bad-faith,
 * Don't seem to order them around by making "demands",
 * Show some indication that you had at least tried to read the scholarly references appended to the statement you are objecting to and found that they don't adequately support the article claim, and
 * Don't end your post with a rhetorical flourish about what the wikipedia article allegedly does to the "entire Hindu community".
 * This is a collaborative project and fewer, calmer, more-measured posts directed at, say, your professional colleagues rather than adversaries are likely to be more effective. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the page Love Jihad has broken too many don'ts already. I'd suggest you to look into it too. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:BOOMERANG part of WP:SHOT, which is an essay, not even an Explanatory essay? So it can't be cited as a Policies and Guidelines. Crainsaw (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:BOOMERANG part of WP:SHOT, which is an essay, not even an Explanatory essay? So it can't be cited as a Policies and Guidelines. Crainsaw (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Direct link: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said, it is not just my view there is a huge audience discussing how biased this page is, you've just helped me further to prove my point by blocking. So thank you. Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You've just proven me right anyone opposing your view is blocked. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was only discussions on talk page which doesn't count as edits. But ofcourse I don't wish to contribute anyway so absolutely no intention to appeal with arrogant facists with an agenda to propagate only their personal views and cite only sources that conforms to their view point and dismiss all. Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's quite hypocritical of flag bearers of free speech to silence and block someone with a different view point than theirs and put a label of fringe even while supporting the Islamist to dismiss any terror related incident as Islamophobia. Clearly there's bias and favouritism, it's also noteworthy that your editors called me a zombie and no action taken. Clearly evident partiality and intolerance. ￼ Srj.cooldude (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When I raised objection to "Hindu women as possessions" section is Hinduphobic. Instead of considering to revise. It has been now duplicated in two places now. One in the first introduction and now under a new section in the body. "Reliance on tropes"
 * Why so? Quite clearly proving my allegations true that there is bias. Srj.cooldude (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear admin, I request you to be impartially check if there is bias in the page Love Jihad. The user Iskandar323 has a history of editing pages critical of islam. You can see the talk page on Muslim conquests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iskandar323#Muslim_conquests The editor quoted his edits as "The way you are undertaking this seems like a campaign, that you are not interested in discovering consensus, but just imposing your point of view".
 * I'm humbly asking you to have a neutral view and take appropriate action on the way Love Jihad page is edited, I'm not even asking you to unblock me. Just make sure the page Love Jihad is not exclusively pushing the voice of certain people who favour islam. Srj.cooldude (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to chime in here and let any passing admins know that, while we have been at odds in the past, Iskandar is one of the best, least biased editors I have seen in my Wikipedia career. Any allegations against him are preposterous and i have always seen him act in good faith compliance with policy. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Googleguy007#c-Abecedare-20230504172700-WP:BATTLEGROUND_conduct_at_Talk:Love_Jihad Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I find it quite suspicious that a blocked editor is apparently actively using Wikipedia enough to both see my comment within 30 minutes and be aware of a warning on my talk page, this reeks of sock puppetry. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably you're unaware, when you leave a comment on my talk page, I do get email alerts and I can view Wikipedia just like any normal user. Your accusations is unsubstantiated and baseless. Srj.cooldude (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that you have no freedom of speech here. See WP:FREESPEECH. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Noted. I was not aware. Thanks for letting me know. Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request
. Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment - To any reviewing admins, I'd like to point out that coincidentally started editing after Srj.cooldude's block and appears to be pushing the same POV as Srj.cooldude.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2023
 * ❌ based on technical data. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, but there's no technical data tying these two accounts together. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)