User talk:Edward Zigma

Does someone claiming something automatically make it true? Well, obviously, no. I can say the moon is made of cheese, but just because I say so does not make it so. At the same time, just because something isn't true doesn't mean it was never said.

Obviously, "someone said so" would be a very bad source for saying in Wikipedia's voice that something happened--but that is not what my edit did. My edit stated in Wikipedia's voice that VHP has claimed that temples were destroyed, in other words, an attributed claim without Wikipedia stating that claim to be true or false.

And yes, it is a sensitive subject. You know so, I know so, VHP knows so. But that is part of what makes the claim relevant and noteworthy enough to be included in the article. AddWittyNameHere 04:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that's something totally wrong. There was no temple demolition. If you have amy source that it happened then please refer it. This is a serious issues as many mosques are demolished in India in the name of this. That's why I tried to keep people responses as minimum as possible. The use of term like Jihadists and all other is used in India to malign people's image. A lot of people claimed many things. Tabrez uncle claimed he was poisined but he opt it out instead and put the postmortem report. So a claim maid doesn't mean it's right.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That was just a false, politically motivated claim made to divert the issue. There was nothing like any temple demolition anywhere. This was used so that issue gets diverted. Coz there were really huge protests on this incident. I believe keeping his comment to minimal and language edit would be best if you wanted it to be in the article. But an edit on the language is must instead of keeping it as a whole. Thanks Edward Zigma (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me a bit here, Edward Zigma. I'm not saying "What was said is true and so we should include it and say it is true". (Absolutely no reliable source I've seen claims any temples were destroyed, so I'm pretty sure VHP is lying for their own purposes)

I think there's a slight misunderstanding between us, Edward. I'm not saying "What was said is true (absolutely no reliable source I've seen agrees with VHP that any temples were destroyed, so I'm pretty sure they're lying for their own purposes) so we should include there were temples destroyed and cite it to VHP."

What I am saying is "What was said was said, and we have reliable sources that show it was said, and we should include that it was said, without stating the actual claim is true".

However, if you believe it is better to keep the direct citation of the claim out of the article, would you agree with the following addition to the article:

Vishwa Hindu Parishad called the lynching "a conspiracy of secularists"^[1]. VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain blamed the "Khan Market Mafia" for the conspiracy, and claimed that several temples were destroyed and Hindus attacked as a result.^[1]

Would that be an acceptable compromise to you? AddWittyNameHere 05:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is better than that. But still this can give false perception that temples were demolished after that which is not the case. If there is a way to add his comment and make it clear that it did not happen. That would be the best.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you have any sure shot citations that had happened, then you can add it as it is. But as far as I know nothing like that happened. It was just a false comment. So if we add this last comment of yours. And make it clear that it did not happen. Coz by reading this ,it can make a false perception that it may had happened. Otherwise you edit is perfect.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's generally fairly difficult to prove something didn't happen, and to state in Wikipedia's voice that the demolition of those temples did not in fact occur at all, we'd need actual, reliable sources that say "nope, didn't happen". Do you know of any reliable sources that specifically comment on the VHP's claims to deny/refute them? I've seen plenty of sources that comment on VHP's claims with words that certainly are suggestive it's complete nonsense, but nothing that outright states it. AddWittyNameHere 05:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Then we can add this if that is so strongly needed. Then is this version would be a lot better.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad called the lynching "a conspiracy of secularists"[1]. VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain blamed it on "the Khan Market Mafia, which has repeatedly been maligning Hindu society, India and humanity.

Going to repeat the reference at the end of that sentence again, because we need to show where we got that quote from, but otherwise seems acceptable to me. AddWittyNameHere 05:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Made a small grammatical change to your proposed sentence, and added it to the article as "Vishwa Hindu Parishad called the lynching "a conspiracy of secularists"^[1], which VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain blamed on "the Khan Market Mafia, which has repeatedly been maligning Hindu society, India and humanity."^[1]" AddWittyNameHere 06:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great effort on the article. Edward Zigma (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I notice you keep occasionally forgetting to indent your replies. No big deal, especially on your own user talk page, but maybe something to work on because like I said before, it can make a conversation a bit confusing to read. AddWittyNameHere 18:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

About these edits: .

They are pretty harmless, but my advice is to just follow WP:TPO: "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." Doing so can annoy other people with very little gain. If that talkpage grows a lot, someone will probably add "automatic archive" at some point, so having "solved issues" on it is not a problem. Your own talkpage is of course a different matter, but there are "rules" there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. No problem. I was just cleaning it. I didn't know that. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No reason you should have known that. WP is a learning by doing (and talking, and asking) place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Edward Zigma. You have new messages at Talk:2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Addition_of_the_attempt_to_communalise_the_issue..
Message added 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXrayᗙ 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

i have replied there. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please strictly follow WP:BRD and WP:INDENT. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted you both on the article and the talk page for using the talk page as WP:FORUM, naming a non ntable suspect violates WP:BLPCRIME. I believe you are highly opinionated and your POV strongly reflects in your editing. Please make an effort to follow WP:NPOV. The arrest is already mentioned once, and it isnt important to have its own section. I dont even know what the suspect posted that was worthy of an arrest. Perhaps the images did the trick. The bit on google search is non notable trivia. We generally avoid adding such trivia on Wikipedia. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

OK.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jai Shri Ram shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Edward, thanks for pinging me. Since you have been here long enough, can I press you to learn how to indent posts correctly, unlike here. Before you save, please press the Preview button, and make sure that all your paragraphs line up. When it is broken up like this, it is hard to tell who is saying what.

You can indent any paragraph by putting enough ":" symbols at the front. Please see HELP:TALK -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please edit it properly I will try to keep in mind next time. Thanks. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks for informing me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not great to see you and Harshil are at it again. This is especially concerning since this was your first edit since December. Could you maybe try editing something less controversial like making articles on Indian mosques? Alternatively, maybe don't edit war as much? It takes two to tango. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

He is doing edit bullying. He dont even let others edit and always acts like his judgement is last and final. This is not a good thing. You can see that this was my first edit since december since I am not regular editor but the edits I do are well cited and if someone discuss it why it is noy good I understand it too. The thing is any edit I do is reverted by that user. He reverted it and I opened discussion with it but instead of giving clear explaination that user always passes judgement imstead of listening. I dont even check his profile but he always do this bullying. I added those things with proper citations. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: User is accusing me for bad faith while reality is page is in my watchlist since August 2019 and I did multiple edit reverts which were not useful.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edit warring is still continuing on this page. I agree that your presence on these communal-subjects is not actually helpful so far and misses the point that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. ML ⁹¹¹ 10:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: No offense, but you're not being helpful here. If I thought you would be, I'd have pinged you. We can talk on your page if you want.
Either way, thanks for the ping. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I know you're not an active user, but that is why I am more concerned you are being discouraged here. However, I would like to repeat that both you and Harshill edit in the same topic field, and it is a rather controversial one. If you would like explore a mutual IBAN, then that is something you should clearly communicate. We can work something out if you want, but edit warring is generally a no-go even in unfair circumstances.
Btw, can you please ping me in the future? I'm not as active as I once was. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious that Zigma likes to edit topics that are in the news and often controversial. When I started editing I also jumped straight into controversial articles, It is a bit hard to learn that way, but eventually you learn the ropes. User:MJL I would not suggest formal IBANs. Though I would recommend both @Harshil169: and Zigma to try and avoid crossing paths with each other as much as possible. Harshil I know you are watching a lot of pages, but remember that you are not the only one watching so if the edits deserve to be reverted some one else will do it anyway. Regarding the concerns on Edit warring, Zigma, Please strictly follow WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD and may be put yourself on a self enforced WP:1RR, that is try not to make more than one revert on a page. As soon as someone reverts you, you should start a thread on the talk page, copy your edits on the talk page and ask suggestions to improve from the editor who reverted you . You will not loose anything by following my suggestions and you will not be subjected to any blocks in case you accidently trip any of them. On the other hand tripping a formal WP:IBAN unknowingly is very easy and I have seen even admins getting blocked for violation of IBAN. I value your contributions and I hope you will follow my advice while you learn the ropes of editing here. On a side note have you completed the tutorial WP:TWA. It is an interesting one and I would suggest you to complete it as it is a kind of crash course that helps you understand the important things. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Really thanks DBigXray. I didnt know about WP:1RR until now. I open talk page conversation after 2 edits. But thing that keeps buzzing me is that this editor, with whom I have been in conflict for very long time, behaves like his decision is final. When I had opened the talk page for discussion he said,"I dont want to discuss". He behaves like his decision is final and when he says no is irreverversible. But I promise I will limit and restict myself to 1RR. Really thanks sir.Edward Zigma (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

you are welcome. I have had several content disputes with User:Harshil169. But I still value his contributions. He is a reasonable person and we have successfully settled several disputes after discussion on article talk and his user talk. Since I have asked both of you to try and avoid crossing ways, as much as possible, a confrontation might never happen. If it happens, and you find yourself in a situation where a discussion with him on the talk page is not making progress, you can always ping me for a third opinion or if I am not around, get help from WP:3O or make a note asking help at WT:IN. Remember everyone has a point of view and opinion. We need to build a neutral encyclopedia so we have to keep everyone together. Conflicting opinions are important in achieving a WP:NPOV, so focus on the content and not on the contributor. Harshil, please be kind to Zigma, he is still a new user.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Takbir source given, please see. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't said that it was generalised. And talk page discussion is open. If you can provide source that it was generalised rather than some picked up incidents. I would be happy to help. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Note that North East Delhi riots is one of the many articles covered by these sanctions. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on North East Delhi riots. However please refer to WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE to gain a better understanding on how to properly cite references. Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah no problem. Please do thr changes. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your AE report, the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions. I've made a request in the correct formatting below for you:

==Dev0745==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Dev0745===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Edward Zigma}} 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dev0745}}<p>{{ds/log|Dev0745}}</p>

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions]]

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/944207085?diffmode=source 6 March 2020] the discussion is already [[Special:Permalink/944235685#Slow_spaced_disruptive_editing_on_page_by_some_user.|discussed in the talk page]] but still pushing it after many warning.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/944195560?diffmode=source 6 March 2020] Slow spaced disruptive editing trying to change the context of page.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : 
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020&diff=944224920&oldid=944101641 6 March 2020] Dev0745 topic banned from [[Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019]] and closely related protests

;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace Dev0745 with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Dev0745===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Dev0745====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Dev0745===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*

I hope you find the above helpful. Please consider replacing your current filing with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to withdraw it now that I've checked the timestamps. El C topic banned the user shortly after your report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

... I have included all deaths, just split into two sentences: the majority first, the minority second. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

But we are mentioning deaths in a lost, then how could it leave them. It was giving a biased view that's what I think. Edward Zigma (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)