User talk:Codetruth

Welcome!

Hello, Codetruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Aafia Siddiqui does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Auric talk 22:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Aafia Siddiqui. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Auric talk 14:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Codetruth. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Aafia Siddiqui. Thank you.--Auric talk 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Auric talk 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response on the NPOV noticeboard but wanted to also leave a message here. Please, read through the reliable sources article, I think that's a key misunderstanding you've got about Wikipedia. Our articles have to reflect the views of secondary sources in proportion to the weight in those sources. This can be difficult for people with strong points of view but it's something you must respect on Wikipedia. In this specific example, if the majority of sources say that X happened, you cannot put X happened but it was really Y without any sources. If there are sources that offer a different view, you can add X happened but according to Z it was really Y with a citation to source Z.

Please though, you need to tone your comments down. It's obvious you are passionate about this but that passion can be a hindrance on Wikipedia. Focus on the edits, not on the editor and remember that others will disagree with you. Always find good sources for your edits and be understanding if others disagree about things and work to resolve disputes. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codetruth, when you're replying to a existing discussion on a talk page or noticeboard, please don't create a new section for your reply. It can make it hard for editors to follow the discussion. The preferred approach is to click on the [edit] link to the right of the section for the discussion. You've probably noticed that most posts are indented - that's also to help with the readability. Wikipedia uses colons to indent posts. To indent your post, just use one more colon than the comment you are replyin g to. See the WP:INDENT page for more information on indenting. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's manual of style specifies that we should generally use a person's full name the first time they are mentioned (which is usually the first sentence if they are the subject of the article) and use only the surname thereafter. Honorifics shouldn't be used in the article to describe a person, rather the article itself should mention that a person has earned X degree, etc. (See WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC - same article but two different sections). For Aafia Siddiqui, the article has been using Siddiqui but you changed most of those references to Dr. Aafia. We don't use honorifics but I want to make sure we are using the correct surname. Is it Siddiqui as the article has been using or Aafia? Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The surname is typically the name that person is most known by. In this case, that would definitely be Dr. Aafia, since that is how her family members, media personnel and everyone pertaining to the case referred when describing her. ^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codetruth (talk • contribs) 00:08, January 22, 2013‎ (UTC)

As I said, we do not use honorifics in Wikipedia articles so that is not an option. I'll have to look through the secondary sources to see what's the most commonly used surname. Ravensfire (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point. The most commonly used surname is indeed Dr. Aafia

Please re-read my initial post in this section. Ravensfire (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I was trying to be a bit polite and try to point you in the right direction on this. That hasn't worked so I'll be direct. Wikipedia does not use honorifics such as Dr. to refer to someone. Period. If it's in a quote, that's fine - we're quoting what someone said. But in general text, honorifics are not used. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codetruth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Shadowjams. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Aafia Siddiqui, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, Shadowjams (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codetruth, you are edit-warring with multiple editors on the Aafia Siddiqui article and you need to stop. Wikipedia has a strict policy against edit-warring called WP:3RR - you are not allowed to do more than 3 reverts of an article in a 24 hour period without risking being blocked. There are VERY few exceptions to this, basically page-blanking or obvious vandalism such as adding obscenities or random text. Your reverts DO NOT fall into an exception. You need to use the talk page, discuss your changes one section at a time and get consensus before making further changes. Your next revert will probably lead to a report on the edit war noticeboard where a block is possible. Don't push it, please.

Also, your edit summaries are deceptive at best. Describing a major revision like this as "Corrected grammatical mistakes" is deceptive at best. Be honest with your edit summaries. Also, please only use the "minor edit" box for truly minor edits - formatting, layout, minor copy-editing, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering, yes, I am at 3 reverts and won't revert you again today. I will, however, report you to the noticeboard if this continues. Use the article talk page, discuss your concerns and your edits and get consensus first. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see people making dubious and clear lies against her and as such, this kind of biased articles need to be stopped. I am trying to make it unbiased. So instead of doubting my intentions you should stop those who are accusing her of baseless crimes not me. Because, i am only improving the article's authenticity. Codetruth (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the blunt words could not get through to you and get you to use the article talk page to discuss prior to your edits. Multiple editors have reverted your POV changes. You have lied in your edit summaries. You have inserted highly POV, unsourced statements into a WP:BLP. You must change your editing style on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Codetruth reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Aafia Siddiqui. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wikireader41. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Aafia Siddiqui without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Wikireader41 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had provided the reason. But, to make the point clear i will be more clear of the reasons the next time.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aafia Siddiqui. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Auric talk 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Final warning. You were blocked last month for edit-warring on Aafia Siddiqui. It appears that you have resumed your disruptive edits. Any more editing on the article may result in a block (longer than the last one).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who gave you the right to edit it if you dont allow me to edit it? I have provided clear reference regarding Dr. Aafia's case. Yet you claim she is not innocent, when infact she is, and the evidence proves that. Hence, you should NOT block me for speaking the truth.

See WP:TRUTH. It's not just about the references.--Auric talk 14:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Aafia Siddiqui. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Slp1 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codetruth, I have blocked you for a week for continued edit warring and disruption on the Siddiqui article. Your edits and comments show clear signs that you cannot and do not listen to others or indeed follow the policies and guidelines of this site. My guess is that this is your last chance, in that if you return to this kind of editing after the block is up, you will end up being blocked indefinitely. In fact I will probably do it myself. I suggest that you take the following week to carefully and thoughtfully read both our policies and guidelines and what others have said to you above and elsewhere. Particularly key ones for you will be:

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Five pillars
• Consensus
• Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing especially WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

It may be that be that this article has problems with some of these policies. But the way you are going about it, both in terms of content and your behaviour in reverting multiple editors is doomed to failure and will, as I said, lead to a indefinite block if you continue. My advice to prevent this is the following: after carefully reading up and inwardly digesting WP's methods, tackle one small issue at a time on the talkpage first, mentioning the problems with the current text with regard to the policies and guidelines you have read. Slp1 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codetruth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Auric talk 14:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Twice you've been caught socking. It is abundantly clear that your only interest here is to push a certain point of view (violating the mandate that we edit neutrally) using multiple accounts (violating blocks). I have made your block indefinite. May I add, on a personal note, that this is not helping your cause: if there is one, it should be made neutrally, in an encyclopedic manner. Pushing the truth does not work on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]