User talk:Wikihc

Discretionary sanctions alert
--RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit is absolutely unacceptable in an area under discretionary sanctions. Please make sure all the content you add is explicitly supported by reliable sources going forward. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit is perfectly acceptable as the line written before it explains that it is a quote from the website of the publisher - "According to the Guardian as well as the current publisher's website[1]". The content before the edit was not present in the source website. Hence, replaced it with the correct quotation from the website of the publisher. Wikihc (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Signatures
Please sign the following post. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, had missed it. -Wikihc (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Thank you Morgan Leigh - Wikihc (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI Wikihc this notice does not mean there are any sanctions against you. It is a general notice about discretionary sanctions that apply for this topic, and this info is already at the top of the talk page. As with everything else on your talk page you are free to delete it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Hi Wikihc. I don't want to template you again (especially considering that the previous notification is just a few sections above this one!) but, arbcom has decided that sanctions notifications become old after one year. Since you're commenting on a controversial topic, if you could acknowledge that you're aware of the discretionary sanctions in the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area, we can move on without formal templating. Thanks and best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the different between this and a template anyway?Wikihc (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people find templates annoying. Since you don't apparently, I'll just template you. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
RegentsPark (comment) 15:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Talk:The Kashmir Files
I noticed the recent edit-war over pinning a discussion section at the page. If you wish the discussion to be ongoing, please actually comment on the substance being discussed rather than simply tagging it. The latter just clutters the page and doesn't help improve the article. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, I have already commented on that discussion about using the word "victim" from the source. The discussion is still ongoing. TrangaBellam gave a vague "" as summary, without participating in the discussion Wikihc (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC) . Do you still find my revert disruptive? Wikihc (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My point is that merely pinning a section doesn't keep it active; a discussion is active if and only if participants are actually discussing it. Through no fault of yours, nobody had commented at the particular section for five days. That may be because others think the issue is resolved, is not worth resolving, or are simply too busy to have paid attention to it recently. If you think there are still unresolved issues worth discussing please bring them to the attention of currently involved editors by posting an updated question/comment in that section or, if you think it appropriate, use a WP:DRN process to bring more eyes to the issue. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, thanks for your advice about how to proceed. I would still like to understand if you find the accusation of disruptive for the first revert of an action with vague summary, valid?   Wikihc (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find the undue focus and especially the edit-warring (both the repeated removal and the re-adding) over the pins to be waste of time and hence disruptive. That's the reason I intervened before matters escalated and resulted in posts at ANI/AEW. Lets focus on the substance and sources, rather than such meta-matters. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for better understanding because I did not find a similar warning on TrangaBellam's talk page. Thanks and Cheers. Wikihc (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I commented here because yours was the last edit when i saw the talkpage activity. I assume that is aware of this discussion though and will not therefore, say, remove the latest pin you added. When in doubt or dispute, leave the talkpage management to the admins (or bring it to their notice proactively) and focus on the substance instead. Horses for courses. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I would like to ask you about this unpinning of the thread I started, the same one that you asked Trangabellam to not unpin above. The discussion about the Historical Accuracy section of the article in ongoing in the talk page, albeit across multiple new sections than the single one. I would therefore like the thread to remain pinned, and perhaps also move the other relevant sections to the this common section. I have communicated about your advice to not upin sections to Tayi on the talk page. Yet, I seek your advice before reverting the unpin. Thanks. Wikihc (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant this edit. I don't see how the discussion can be said to be ongoing in that section given that nobody as commented in it since March 22. If the discussion on the topic has organically moved into other sections, it would be best to let it continue as is rather than disrupt the page by moving sections around. Note that the the auto-archiving limit on the talkpage is now set at 10 days so there will rarely be a need or justification to pin any thread on this talkpage, which already has ample eyes and activity. Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)