User talk:MangoWong

Hi there.

Thanks for clarifying more on copyvio. You are amongst a very rare Wikipedians around here who go at length to clarify and not just go about pasting copyvio notices, throwing warnings and moving on(example my talk page User_talk:thisthat2011). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, MangoWong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

Articles under the India project suffer from a systemic bias due to a dominance of contributors from Western countries. You can help counter this imbalance by becoming a regular contributor and by joining or watchlisting India related discussions. Again, welcome! Zuggernaut (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

In this edit you wrote Do you have a brain? I mean, a brain--which can logically process information?. That's a personal attack and, as such, frowned upon. Please, comment on content and not on contributors. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the post just above my comment, I am being told to go edit WikiAlpha or something like that. Do you think that is something to be appreciated?-MangoWong (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

While the preceding comment contained an ad hominem, which was inappropriate, though not a personal attack, this does not excuse your reply. Even if you are attacked, you should not respond in kind. Since the atmosphere is already poisonous, everyone should try not to exacerbate the situation further... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think folks are entitled to only as much respect as they would allow for others. To my way of thinking, asking someone to go away from WP is as uncivil as a personal attack is. Maybe more so. It can tell heavily on most people's enthusiasm to edit. The reason why we have policies like NPA is that we want to retain our users and to foster a healthy editing environment. Asking someone to "go away" goes directly against the core reason for having NPA. It should also be treated seriously and should not be watered down by saying that it is wrong but not a PA. Another reason for retorting to uncivil comments like "go edit somewhere else" is that if ignored, the severity of the insults from the first party only goes on increasing and the situation deteriorates even further. In order to prevent the situation from deteriorating further, some sort of discouragement has to be extended?-MangoWong (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at Talk:Kurmi

As the section title says. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zuggernaut for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Sitush (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. If you have any sense of decency, you should apologize.-MangoWong (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame me if it is becoming obvious whether you have it or not. And you are being allowed to stay away from this page for the next 24 millenia.-MangoWong (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill

Thanks MangoWong for your guidance and suggestions.Bill clinton history (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MangoWong. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please do not edit-war over the infobox on Kurmi. Information in the lead or in the infobox that summarisese material elsewhere in the body of the article does not need its own independent sources. If you think the sourcing in the body of the article itself is faulty, please discuss that on the article Talk page - if the in-article sourcing is poor, then the body of the article itself could be changed (with consensus) and then the infobox will be changed to reflect it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:BRD. You have made a change and been reverted, and now you need to discuss it - edit-warring over it could get you blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest clearer title for your ANI

Greetings, "Please look" is rather generic, I suggest that if you want more new eyes for your ANI that you have a more explicit title such as "Endemic caste bias at Kurmi" or "Anti-India POV at Kurmi"; just basically to let a reader immediately see what the overall concern is, at which article(s). Though I don't think your ANI will gain the results you want, I do in principle wants ANIs to get fresh perspective, so just wanted to offer that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that please look is generic, but I do not think much of the new titles you suggest whether or not the report gets a response at all. Even then, we do have an agreement the my choice of title is generic, and having an agreement is a positive development. Isn't it?-MangoWong (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@MangoWong Isn't the ANI discussion also about 'Kurmis are generally regarded as Shudra' - disputed? How long does it take to understand that contents from reliable sources are to be mentioned and not ignored, and how are Kurmis regarded as Shudra when there are explicit references mentioning Shudra in Hinduism? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTte

Please. Content has nothing to do with ANI. Please trust me. But Sitush violating the 3RR and Boing said Zebedee, who is not entitled to interfere in content matters are the main issues. Admins cannot interfere in those matters. It is to be decided among eds only. Boing said Zebedee has not only reverted me, also restored a previous version while protecting the article, and is also making wrong claims about cites being not required in lead and infobox. These are the issues. To repeat, the issues are:3RR vio by Sitush, undue interference by admin.-MangoWong (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And another issue is that Boing! said Zebedee is acting in a partial manner. He sees nothing wrong when Sitush violates the thre RR, but makes me an edit warrior and also a "caste warrior" for one revert. That's the point.-MangoWong (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a similar behavior of admins is also observed for ignoring contents. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind here is that once some admin gets involved in the content issues of an article, they are not entitled to act as admins in that article or in that article's general area. After becoming involved in content issues, they are only eds there, not admins. They can only be admins for other articles or areas in which they have no involvement with article content issues.-MangoWong (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If your issue is the behaviour of another editor(s) (including me or no), and especially of an admin, you really should have a clearer title. "Editor and admin misbehaviour on India issues" or just something which gives someone an idea of what it's about. Between the vague title, and TT trying to drag content issues into it (seriously TT, do you have to bring up identical Kurmi issues on 8 different pages?), we're currently not getting much new eyes-on. I want new eyes-on just as much as you do, though again it's because I'm pretty sure that other serious editors or admins would agree that Sitush and I are in the right, so I'd like to get fresh, totally neutral eyes-on to confirm or deny that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

These are the issues. To repeat, the issues are:3RR vio by Sitush, undue interference by admin My concern (and thus this whole section) is that your ANI section title does not summarise this. If everyone just put "please look" or "hey guys" or "need help" at ANI, it would be quite difficult for readers to figure out which conflicts they should be coming in to assist with. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. So far, you are not really a part of my complaint on the ANI, even if I continue to have difference of opinion with you. I am reluctant to take up your suggestion because I am unsure if it is proper to change the section heading once it has been put into place. Others may object at this change, and yet others may become confused. So, I think it is better to leave it as it is. I will try to keep in mind your suggestions if I need to put up any new section headings.-MangoWong (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem; maybe to avoid the link-breaking issues of changing the sub-section (as you accurately point out), perhaps just below the section heading you could put a description "Concerns about XYZ behaviour on ABC topics" tagged either with '''bolding''' or the <big>BIG</big> tags to make it visible to those scrolling by? Again, I do not necessarily endorse your complaints, but I do want to see them clearly addressed in that appropriate ANI forum so that all parties can be satisfied with outside input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have made *no* content decisions on this or any other caste article - I am purely acting to enforce polices, which require that we follow consensus and discuss things if we wish to change consensus. I have no idea what content is correct, or which should be retained, but I am capable of assessing and helping to enforce consensus. These are very fraught articles, with just about every sentence having been argued over - and all we're trying to achieve is to get people to discuss things first and get a consensus for change. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kurmi. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, anything related to the shudra issue in the article is the same thing. You are ignoring consensus, refusing to discuss and trying to steamroller things through. It will not work. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what is 3RR. Stay away from this talk page if placing warning signs is your purpose of arrival. If you object to any of my edits, you can start a thread on the article talk page. I will surely discuss it there. Repeat. Don't place warning signs here, particularly when you yourself have already performed a 3RR vio. An "edit" is not an edit war.-MangoWong (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is clear from your ANI report that you do not understand 3RR. Nor do you understand that notices such as the above generally fall outside the consensus on "keep away" requests. They are procedural and need to be said. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of your behavior is that you do not understand warning messages at all and seem to perpetrate warningavalanches only to discredit others. I see only as much value in your warnings as you have real-life familiarity with these subjects.-MangoWong (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

If you wish to remove sourced content from Kurmi, please discuss it on the Talk page and get a consensus - if you have a good reason and explain it, I'll be happy to support you myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling this to me as an admin or as an ed. I understand that misleading info can be removed without discussions. If you have any objections to my edit or think that the material was non-misleading, please explain it on the relevant talk page. And you can expect me to continue to edit articles without requiring with/without discussions based on my own judgement and relevant WP policies and guidelines. I do not think that your interpretation of WP policies and guidelines is flawless. For example, you have been claiming that the lead and infobox need no citations. Can you show which WP policy says this?-MangoWong (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And how can you participate in ed discussions and perform admin actions too on the same article?-MangoWong (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to revert myself there, partly because there's an ANI open, and partly because I've looked again and I'm less certain that that one has been decided by consensus before. By the way, talking part in discussions regarding policy and procedures while doing admin actions is not prohibited - if it were, then no admin could ever really take any actions. What WP:INVOLVED prohibits is taking admin actions where one is also involved a content disagreement, but I have expressed no opinions on the content itself, have taken no part in any discussions of the actual sources, and have no idea what class/status the Kurmi caste should be. Using admin tools to enforce consensus decisions that have been made by *other people* is not, as far as I am aware, a breach of WP:INVOLVED. But I'll be happy to listen to other opinions on the ANI - in fact, I might ask myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring notice

Please see Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I resent that you have made me an edit warrior for trying to take down misleading info,[1] and for performing one revert only[2] (in order to press my attempt to take it down). And I would resent it even more if it is found that you have not placed a similar notice on Sitush's talk page. He too performed one revert, didn't he?[3] And he was conducting an unnecessary revert, IMO. What's the problem if cn tags stay until issues can be sorted out? If the cn tags stay, they may attract some more people's attention who may try to solve the problem. We want more people to take an interest in issues. No? And is there something wrong if we let the reader know that there might be something wrong with some piece of info? I think we owe it to our readers to warn them about problems with info as long as we also know about them and as long as they are not solved. How could I be wrong in putting up those tags?-MangoWong (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that you have just made your third revert: [4], [5] and [6]. Your next revert will be a violation of WP:3RR and will result in a block. That said, also remember that WP:3RR is not an entitlement; you can be blocked for edit warring even if you do not make four reverts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken in my interpretation. But I think I have made twp reverts only. The first diff which you show, looks like a not-revert to me. I am only adding a cn tag there. Is that a revert?-MangoWong (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always interpreted the policy to mean that you're not allowed to make the very same edit or one that is equivalent (be it adding or removing a template, an image or text) four times or more, because it disrupts the article; it is my interpretation, of course, and reasonable people may differ. That said, however, as I highlighted above, 3-rr is not an entitlement: one may be edit warring (and, therefore, may be blocked) even if one has made only two o three reverts...

If I may, having been involved in controversial areas before, I've seen that, to adhere to a voluntary one-revert rule makes it easier to solve disputes and prevents conflicts from escalating too much (and it helps not to get blocked too... ); that's only my experience, of course, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)