User talk:TallMegan

TallMegan, you are invited to the Teahouse!
 Java Hurricane  16:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nihang, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate  Initially, internal wikipedia sources were there however more external sources are added. Please dont delete the well-sourced section. TallMegan (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan


 * Your addition is still undue, Nihang's have a long history and it shouldn't contain specific recent events which do not provide an encyclopedic overview to the topic of Nihang. It's an example of the kind of recentism that should be avoided in articles. One other points as well, the addition needs to be explicitly verifiable which the sources you added do not help with either. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

[User:Tayi Arajakate|Tayi Arajakate]  Your comment on 'recentism' is too vague. The event is now being probed as terrorist incident in India so it means the incident is of significant importance. The sources I have added are proper and reliable and they are not on wikipedia's blacklist. If you problems with specific sources, please describe which sources and WHY. If you keep reverting my edits, you will be duly reported. TallMegan (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan


 * If you genuinely want to edit constructively, I would recommend that you try reading up on the linked policies in the comment. I haven't reverted your edit yet but do not that the onus to gain consensus lies on the one adding material. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

[User:Tayi Arajakate|Tayi Arajakate] 'Recentism' applies to an entire article and not to a section -- I just added a small statement in a section. The 'original research' does not apply here as I just took the information from recent news sources which are verifiable. Please quote which source breaks which guideline and in what way. Thanks. TallMegan (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan


 * Recentism is about content in articles, please read it again. Quoting the relevant part from the policy page on no original research, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research ... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The addition is an example of this, i.e "... during farmers protest" is supported by sources stating that the incident occurred in the vicinity of a protest site as opposed to occurring in the midst of a protest, and "Nihangs were in news in 2021..." is supported by adding multiple news articles about the incident whereas what's needed is for the sources themselves have to state that they were in the news. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 21:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

[User:Tayi Arajakate|Tayi Arajakate] About recentism- I did read the policy again and quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism  "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events" Since I added ONLY ONE SENTENCE in the article, how does it change the "focus" of the article ? About original research, your first point on "during" vs "site" of "farmers protest" is agreed to and I am changing the wording. About the second point, it is a moot point. You are saying that I should quote news articles which say that "Nihangs were in new" -- this would be an example of WP:LAWYERING. However I dont want to get into argument so I am changing the wordings there as well. If you still delete my article, I would take it to appropriate forum. TallMegan (talk)TallMegan

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Editors Guild of India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

  Venkat TL (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors Guild of India
Just so you know, you're right at three reverts on Editors Guild of India, so any further reverts will result in a block or page protection. The same goes for Venkat TL. I haven't protected the page yet so that uninvolved editors can work on the article. I hope that you and Venkat can work towards a consensus on the article talk page about what content should stay or be removed instead of further back-and-forth reverting. You can also check out dispute resolution options like WP:3O to get outside input. clpo13(talk) 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. So @TallMegan, instead of making reverts please comment on the talk page and explain your problem as I asked on the talk. Venkat TL (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL  I tried talking to you, but you would not stop your haphazard reverting. In addition, other users such as clpo13 and TheBirdsShedTears tried to correct you, but you would not stop reverting or improving the article. TallMegan (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:Rob108&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Dhy.rjw. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. clpo13(talk) 16:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)