User talk:Statistics.India

February 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Muslim population growth have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Muslim population growth was changed by Statistics.India (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860839 on 2022-02-09T20:51:52+00:00

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Muslim population growth. 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. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2022 (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.

Hi Statistics.India! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Muslim population growth several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:Muslim population growth, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. twsabin 21:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Do not mark your edits with inappropriate edit summaries, as you did at Muslim population growth. Your edits have been reverted or removed as unconstructive, and the use of deceptive or inappropriate edit summaries is considered disruptive editing; you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. twsabin 21:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This was your deceptive edit summary: Special:Diff/1070892404. There were no spelling errors. You removed a reference while saying how you were making the text follow references more closely. You must not do this. The summary must be accurate and complete. twsabin 21:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you, it's my first time editing here and I may not have understood all the rules beforehand. The issue with this article is that it's out together very well manipulating the source articles used in references. Only the sentences which the writer wanted to use have been picked up and not the entire message which the particular reference article was giving. For example if you can open and check the reference link number 5, you will find how it talks about attributing high fertility rate to muslims a myth. My concern over this misrepresentation of information is that the overall article looks derogatory to the whole muslim community and can fuel hatred and Islamophobia. I humbly request that this piece should either be rewritten or deleted permanently. Statistics.India (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Now! any reply here? Statistics.India (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Muslim population growth concerns
Hi! Thank you for guiding me to talk pages, it's my first time editing here and I may not have understood all the rules beforehand. The issue with the article 'Muslim Population Growth' is that it's put together very well manipulating the source articles used in references. Only the sentences which the writer wanted to use have been picked up and not the entire message which the particular reference article was giving. For example if you can open and check the reference link number 5, you will find how it talks about attributing high fertility rate to muslims a myth. My concern over this misrepresentation of information is that the overall article looks derogatory to the whole muslim community and can fuel hatred and Islamophobia. I humbly request that this piece should either be rewritten or deleted permanently. Statistics.India (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Statistics.India (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, would you revert here or am I right to consider the motive to write such an article as deteriorating Muslim's image in front of the world and to create hatred? Statistics.India (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The parent topic here is Population growth. It's a topic of perennial encyclopedic interest in the areas of demographics, geography, and more recently sustainability. The world's population is then analyzed by various criteria, by country, by age, and also by the common demographic parameter that is religion. When populations are described, religion is always taken into account. This is what has led to the articles such as Christian population growth and Muslim population growth. This being said, I understand that you perceive a subtext here, such as an underlying thesis about the Muslim population growth being something bad. But it appears to be your reading into the article, arising from your preconceptions of how the Muslim faith is perceived globally; this subtext is not really there—it's just a subjectively perceived threat to the desired image and stature of this religion. The Wikipedia article merely describes Muslim population growth, as a demographic reality, and does so neutrally and factually. It does not distort or misinterpret sources. It is not a polemical text on how this growth is a global threat of any kind. Please understand that the there is no subtextual thesis intended to disparage Muslims. The sources are not cited tendentiously, to buttress an anti-Islam viewpoint, but only to verify relevant claims about the topic, that enable readers to understand and learn about the world. Even if the cited source itself does have a certain polemical subtext, we don't have to transfer it to our article; rather we will pick the parts that are the most factual to verify the statements that are the most relevant for the subject we are dealing with.I hope that this will make you reconsider your objections to the article as a whole. Sincerely twsabin 21:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)