Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
There is no rule that says that every sentence should have a citation. You need to look at the nearest citation and check if it supports the content or not. I presume you haven't done so. -- ] (]) 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no rule that says that every sentence should have a citation. You need to look at the nearest citation and check if it supports the content or not. I presume you haven't done so. -- ] (]) 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
:Your assumption is wrong. I did check the nearest citation. Stop assuming and actually get to "review" as you say, instead of blindly reverting. I did what Vanamonde suggested and each edit should have been reviewed independently. - ] (]) 23:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
:Your assumption is wrong. I did check the nearest citation. Stop assuming and actually get to "review" as you say, instead of blindly reverting. I did what Vanamonde suggested and each edit should have been reviewed independently. - ] (]) 23:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
::I don't typically edit specific topics like these, but from my understanding is that numerous edits have been revoked all for the sake of keeping one unwanted edit away. The citation tag argument seems solid to me. If certain sentences are not sourced, why are the citation-needed tags removed? If I am correct ] requires that either unsoruced content be removed or at the very lest have have a tag such as {dubious} {citation-needed} or similar tags in this category until the sentences are cited or modified. Or am I missing something here?--] (]) 04:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Persecution of Hindus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I see several edits that User:Mfarazbaig made, and some of them pretty much change the entire tone of the contentious arguments ! Some of the changes suggest WP:POV but I will leave that up to the discussion. I will agree that a majority of their edits were cleanups and I appreciate the user for it! Sdmarathe (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if I reverted some legitimate copy editing edits as well. But this is what happens when you repeatedly revert other editors and do so along with snarky comments about using ctrl F. You won't be taken seriously. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: "when you repeatedly revert other editors"? That's a false accusation. I only reverted Kautliya once. After which Vanamonde suggested me to, "make contentious changes one at a time." And I did exactly that, regardless of what my edit summaries were. I am not aware of any WP policy or guideline that bounds me to explain in great length each word I edit outside of the edit summary and more specifically on the talk page. If any of the involved editors reverting me including you, would have cared enough to tag me here and asked for further explanation, I would have explained it. Case in point, the editor above has done just that and actually appreciates it. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The WP policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Misplaced Pages is written by consensus. It is not your private web site to write whatever you want to write.
The guidelins is WP:BRD, which asks you to discuss when an edit is reverted. Repeatedly reinstating a contested edit without discussion is edit warring. If you keep doing it, you will get blocked.
Your edit summary said you were removing repeated content. If that is all you did, it would have been fine. But you were also doing a number of other things, in particular adding citation needed tags to passages that already had citations. That kind of thing throws the reliability of your whole edit into question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
My edit summary after Vanamonde's revert read: "Added tags. Removed repeating sentences." I don't know what you are on about. None of the sentences I added tags to, had any reference. What happened to, assume good faith? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
My guess is it (AGF) went down the drain along with the part of your edit summary you omitted in the description above Please use your eyes & the brain to spot them. I suggest you stop defending your reverts here and focus on fixing the article in discrete steps and discussing any non editing changes on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
AGF merely means that we assume your edits are well-intentioned. It doesn't mean that everything you do will be accepted. They could still be wrong or misguided. All edits are subject to review by other editors.
There is no rule that says that every sentence should have a citation. You need to look at the nearest citation and check if it supports the content or not. I presume you haven't done so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. I did check the nearest citation. Stop assuming and actually get to "review" as you say, instead of blindly reverting. I did what Vanamonde suggested and each edit should have been reviewed independently. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't typically edit specific topics like these, but from my understanding is that numerous edits have been revoked all for the sake of keeping one unwanted edit away. The citation tag argument seems solid to me. If certain sentences are not sourced, why are the citation-needed tags removed? If I am correct WP:RS requires that either unsoruced content be removed or at the very lest have have a tag such as {dubious} {citation-needed} or similar tags in this category until the sentences are cited or modified. Or am I missing something here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}
