Revision as of 17:12, 12 January 2015 editNoughtnotout (talk | contribs)105 edits →Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra: Lack of neutrality in article due to banTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:48, 12 January 2015 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,242 edits →Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra: See WP:CONSENSUSNext edit → | ||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
Without these mentions it would appear the community is operating in limbo and that would be a misrepresentation of facts. I find it a little disconcerting that you are quite happy to accept this bias in the article and are not accepting any efforts to give it neutrality based on fact. | Without these mentions it would appear the community is operating in limbo and that would be a misrepresentation of facts. I find it a little disconcerting that you are quite happy to accept this bias in the article and are not accepting any efforts to give it neutrality based on fact. | ||
None of the views are my personal opinions. Feel free to point out any you think are. ] (]) 17:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | None of the views are my personal opinions. Feel free to point out any you think are. ] (]) 17:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:Misplaced Pages relies on ] to find the right answer in difficult situations. Since you've never posted on an article Talk page to ask for support from others, it seems you don't understand our model. You already arrived on Misplaced Pages ] about the Dawoodi Bohra succession, and you didn't want to hear what others think. ] (]) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:48, 12 January 2015
Welcome!
|
January 2015
Hello, I'm Summichum. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dawoodi Bohra, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Summichum (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Summichum, you seem to feel a lot of my points need removing but I am not getting any reasons as to why. Would be grateful if you could explain. In the interest of neutrality both points of vew should be shown but you have not even maintained references from the Quran itself.
Which reference are you referring to above? I'd be interested to know why you felt that was unreliable whilst on the other hand the following - The practice of Sajda (Prostration) was started by 51st Dai Taher Saifuddin and went to the extent of claiming that he is “Elahul-Ard” (God on earth) in which the source material is entirely one sided is considered acceptable. Indeed the claim being made has not been given a verfiable source.
Look forward to hearing from you. Have a good day.Noughtnotout (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!
[REDACTED] | Hello! Noughtnotout, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Charles (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
Articles on the Dawoodi Bohra are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA
Please carefully read this information:The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Noughtnotout. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Noughtnotout. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LouiseS1979 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Noughtnotout. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 水 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
January 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Misplaced Pages for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Misplaced Pages, including talk
You have been sanctioned because you are unable to edit neutrally on this topic. You declare one party to the DB succession controversy to be the winner without making any effort to get support from others on Talk
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- despite my repeated queries to you as well as the editor Summichum I have not had any specifics with regards to why my edits are reverted and now this ban.
I have given you specific instances of how the articles in question are all heavily weighted against the community and also the leader. I have neither removed those arguments nor suggested they are untrue or falsified. What I have done is provide facts from reputable sources to show how things stand at the moment. I have not "declared any winner" in the succession dispute. I have merely stated the views of various political and media institutions who are acknowledging one party as Syedna and this is pertinent to the reader. He has all of the facts at his hand. Without these mentions it would appear the community is operating in limbo and that would be a misrepresentation of facts. I find it a little disconcerting that you are quite happy to accept this bias in the article and are not accepting any efforts to give it neutrality based on fact. None of the views are my personal opinions. Feel free to point out any you think are. Noughtnotout (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages relies on WP:CONSENSUS to find the right answer in difficult situations. Since you've never posted on an article Talk page to ask for support from others, it seems you don't understand our model. You already arrived on Misplaced Pages knowing the right answer about the Dawoodi Bohra succession, and you didn't want to hear what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- "oppressive". Retrieved 10 January 2015.