User talk:Rockcodder/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Rockcodder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Rockcodder, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rockcodder! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Rockcodder! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Does Wikipedia have something like 'Template:Infobox disputed territories'?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You appeared to have removed WP:RS information without any reason from Ajay Kumar Mishra article. Continuing to do so will count your edits as WP:Vandal. I see you are a new user, so this is not a warning, just a notification.Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: Thanks for letting me know this, I must have forgotten to add back one of the references while rephrasing and rearranging that section of the article. But does that warrant a warning and reverting other constructive parts of the edits? By the way, I did not remove any information from reliable sources (but I do admit that I accidentally removed the reference related to that information), I had only re-phrased and re-arranged information in that section of the article. Rockcodder (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right it doesn't warrant a warning, mistakes happen, and you are a new user so its all right, I just fixed your simple mistake, I shouldn't have jumped to such a conclusion so soon. Take it as just a notification, and welcome to Wikipedia. I am mostly inactive these days for a busy life but check-in occassionally. Best wishes fellow Wikipedia editors, cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply

You have replied in the middle of my comment. This is not done. Please move your comment to the bottom with proper indentation. Please read the rules at WP:TALKREPLY. I will response after you have moved your comment to the right place. Please dont ping twice in same comment. I got 2 pings. Venkat TL (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lakhimpur Kheri violence. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Venkat TL (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:"to how you think it should be although other editors disagree". Editors? where did that 's' come from? It is clearly you who is edit warring here. You haven't presented any reliable sources to prove at least four people were shot. Not all incidents involving shots being fired are branded as mass shootings. Doing so would be nothing more than exaggeration. The onus is on you to prove that the incident involved at least four people being shot (even if they were not killed or injured) as it was you who included the term 'mass shooting' into the article. Until then the article should not include the disputed wording (which in this case is 'mass shooting'). Rockcodder (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It comes from Template:uw-ew. I think you are smart enough to understand those subtle differences. As I said above, please seek dispute resolution like WP:3O etc. Whichever you feel is appropriate. WP:RFC at this stage is premature. It is like using sledge hammer for a fly, lets try other less time and efforts consuming methods of WP:DR first. Venkat TL (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:I am sorry. I have already tried explaining to you that the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident doesn't qualify as a mass shooting. Moreover, with the involvement Nizil, the discussion is no longer between two editors. In my opinion, Nazil Shah's opinion was that of a third person's. Thus, I felt it was appropriate to use WP:RFC instead of WP:3O. Please do not remove my RfC without consulting me again. Rockcodder (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No Nizl is involved editor. Read WP:3O once again, to understand what it means. There are other ways of WP:DR before RFC, why are you skipping them? Venkat TL (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have already read WP:3O. It clearly states "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. I have already stated that "with the involvement Nizil, the discussion is no longer between two editors". There is no hard requirement that one must start with WP:3O before using WP:RFC. I simply wish to gain the opinions of more than one editor. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so. Please do not revert my RfC again. Rockcodder (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Lakhimpur Kheri violence has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Venkat TL (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence. Venkat TL (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Venkat TL (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ajay Kumar Mishra. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dude... Your problem was copyright violation and close paraphrasing. I fixed those and reposted my edits. Now you revert them again citing the reason as 'repetition not required'. That shouldn't even be considered repetition as each election affidavit has changes that have to be pointed out. And now you accuse me of edit warring. In which world is fixing a problem (which was copyright violation and close paraphrasing as per ur revert edit summary) and reposting one's contributions considered edit warring? Rockcodder (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are removing my section headers repeatedly. That is edit warring. Please discuss your edits/proposal on the article talk. Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That is because your section header of 2005 can be misleading. And you never mentioned that as being a problem in your edit summaries. How am I supposed to know that you had a problem with that? Rockcodder (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are not supposed to know. You are also not supposed to repeat the same thing again and again. Once you find that your edits were reverted. Follow WP:BRD and you are supposed to discuss on the article talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please head to the talk page of the article. I have clearly specified as to why those are not repetitions. And about the BDR thing. According to your revert's edit summery the problem was one of WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOP and nothing else. I felt that fixing a copyright violation did not require a talk page discussion. How is this considered edit warring? Had you told me that your problem was not one of copyright violation but with me changing the section headers then I wouldn't have added my contributions without having a discussion with you first. Rockcodder (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You removed the section titled ===2005=== Twice in your edits. This is edit warring. I agree you were improving other things but some of edits were repeated in both of your edits. Normally when an editor objects to your addition of content, It is your responsibility to stop editing the page. Post on the talk page and work to get WP:CONSENSUS so that the content can be improved to everyone's agreement and then added to the article. See WP:BRD Venkat TL (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You objected to my addition of content because you felt that the content that I added violated copyrights as you felt it was paraphrased. I fixed that before republishing my content. You did not mention you having a problem with me removing ===2005=== in your first revert summary. Had you mentioned that your problem was with me removing ===2005=== in your first revert, I wouldn't have removed that while re-publishing my content. And how does one revert (which was meant to fix copyright violations) qualify as an edit war? Rockcodder (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have answered your question thrice. It seems you are unable to understand. I will not answer a fourth time. Please ask an admin. He will explain your mistakes. I will continue the discussion on the article talk. Venkat TL (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Please do keep in mind that I haven't accused you of 'stonewalling on purpose' (ie I haven't accused you of doing it with a 'harmful motive'). WP:STONEWALLING has a dedicated section for this. I have not assumed bad faith in this instance. Rockcodder (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: It would be helpful if you could mention which sentence(s) (in my reply to your revert) indicated to you that I was assuming bad faith. Rockcodder (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I had noted this regarding your comments about me made at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence. You have continued to misuse the Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence to admonish and make bad faith comments about me. You just need to re-read your comments on Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence to see this. There are not one or two but a whole list of such examples there. Venkat TL (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In response to your last comment here that you genuinely believed my template was not correct, here are the comments that were the reason of the above warning message. I left the timestamps intact so that you can trace them back. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic excerpts copied from Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence showing multiple instances of WP:ASPERSIONS and failure to WP:AGF

The above quote has clearly been manipulated by you ... Rockcodder (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• This clearly indicates your intent to falsify reports to support your narrative. Rockcodder (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• The details of the gunfire discussed in the article are not only wrong but also peddle a narrative. This is evident in the fact that Venkat TL has knowingly turned 'the report did not confirm when the firing took place' into 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' in the article. I accuse him of doing this on purpose based on the fact that he himself posted 'the report did not confirm when the firing took place' in one of the quotes in the 'Mass Shooting' section above. The factually incorrect line in the article which says 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' should be changed after this RfC reaches a consensus on the issue of gunshots being fired. Rockcodder (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  This RfC is not formulated to address any questions on the issue of gunshots being fired. Please do not misinterpret it as such. Please also review WP:ASPERSIONS and try to assume good faith on behalf of of Venkat TL. AlexEng 22:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please don't stonewall this change. If you have any substantive arguments with which to support your position of maintaining 'mass shooting' instead of changing it to 'shooting' please do present them here. Please don't revert my changes citing this RfC as not being concluded on the sole basis of you being the lone dissenter. Rockcodder (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As seen from the timestamps of the above-indicated messages and the timestamps of the warnings in this section, the first 'remember to assume good faith' warning was posted at 06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (meaning all incidents of me not assuming good faith before said time (06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)) have been covered by the first warning). I have no problems with the first warning. My problem here is with the second 'don't assume bad faith' warning. It was given in response to me asking you to stop stonewalling the change as seen from the above message and the timestamp of the message and the warning. How does asking you to stop stonewalling indicate my assumption of bad faith? As stated before, I have not accused you of stonewalling the change on purpose. I agree with the first warning as I had indeed assumed bad faith at that instance. But that doesn't mean that me asking you to stop stonewalling the change later on in the discussion automatically translates to me assuming bad faith again. The is my reason for my opposition to the second warning. Rockcodder (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not stonewalling anything, so stop accusing me of that. Accusing someone of something without good reasons and evidence is a violation of wP:ASPERSIONS. The RfC process started by you is ongoing. It should be allowed to run its course without any further disruptions by you such as this [1]. Asking you to stop interfering in the RfC process to run its course is not stone walling. Apart from me, User:AlexEng also warned your about WP:ASPERSIONS. So this should be a time for you to introspect your conduct on that talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop

You have already made your point. There is no need for you to repeat the same things again and again in a back and forth discussion with me on the RfC section. We have made our disagreements amply clear. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Venkat TL has falsely accused me of edit warring and assuming bad faith. While the first edit war warning and the first 'remember to assume good faith' warning were genuine, the same can't be said for the second warning for both. I am worried that the presence of these second warnings can lead to me being blocked from editing if any further warnings are posted in the future. Is there any way for me to appeal against these warnings and request for them to be removed?

--Rockcodder (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged here. Read WP:TPG. These warnings are for you to heed. Warnings are never a cause for complaint. Your comments are. The warning diffs help to prove that you had been made aware of the concerns with your contributions and you chose to continue with it. You are free to remove or WP:ARCHIVE the warnings from your talk page. The diffs are available from page history. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This question was meant for an admin, not for you. I pinged you only out of courtesy. For me, a warning is a cause for complaint when what I am accused of in the warning is false. I did not edit war at Ajay Kumar Mishra. All I did was fix a copyright issue in my contribution. Similarly, I did not assume bad faith at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence (in the second warning). All I did was inform you that you were stonewalling change. Please don't mark the template in this section with an '|answered=yes' until an admin answers the question. Rockcodder (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont need any unnecessary courtesy pings. Please confirm if you have read WP:TPG. It is obvious that you have not read it and that is why behaving like a total ignorant. Oh and if you think you will use this template to bitch about me to an admin. Well then good luck. Venkat TL (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

By courtesy ping, I meant I did that in order to avoid questions like 'Why wasn't I pinged in a discussion where I am mentioned'. And yes, I have read WP:TPG. Have you even read the question below the template? The point of this question was to appeal against the false warings as their presence can lead to me being blocked from editing if any further warnings are posted in the future. Can't you see that the template says 'I am looking for help from an administrator '? What will I gain from 'bitching about you' to an admin? Please remember to assume good faith. I did not use this template to 'bitch about you' to an admin. Rockcodder (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Your page is in my watchlist. If you do not want my reply to a comment you are making, then avoid pinging me. No you have not read it. If you have read and understood Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Personal_talk_page_cleanup and the associated link Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings

then you would not be making comments like I am bothered by this warning message on my talk page. That page TPG tells you what you can do. You dont need an admin to repeat to you what is written over there. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

My intention here is not just removing those warnings. I don't want my next warnings to be of a higher level based on these warnings as these warnings are false in my opinion. Rockcodder (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Those warnings are appropriate, In my last reply here I have listed those comments that lead to the warnings. Venkat TL (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think any administrator is likely to consider the mere existence of warnings, irrespective of their merit, as contributing to reasons for blocking an editor, so you don't need to worry about that. Unsuitable warnings are posted to user talk pages all the time, and any administrator should be capable of ignoring them. My suggestion, Rockcodder, is that you remove everything relating to this issue from the page (either by just deleting it or, perhaps better, by moving it to a talk page archive) and then you and Venkat TL move on from this incident, and carry on editing while avoiding contact with one another, at least for a while. JBW (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @JBW, Sorry for the edit conflict. I have given instances that lead to the warning here Special:Diff/1059736685. Let me know if you also believe that my warning was inappropriate. Venkat TL (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  You have mixed instances associated to the first warning with the instance associated with the second warning. How is that fair? Rockcodder (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Rockcodder, how then would I justify a higher level warning and not the initial level? The timestamps in your comment make it clear when those comments were made and if there was a prior warning for it on this page. Venkat TL (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  But how does asking someone to stop stonewalling a change indicate an assumption of bad faith? Even WP:STONEWALLING says something along the lines of 'editors can stonewall change while having good faith' and that 'calling this out shouldn't be considered bad faith'. Does asking you to stop stonewalling change even after others have advocated going ahead with the change warrant a 'dont assume bad faith' warning? My point here is I did not assume bad faith when I asked you not to obstruct change which has support from 3-4 other editors in a discussion involving a total of 5 editors. Everyone other than you had advocated for the removal of the term 'mass shooting'. Meaning that the second warning was given for an 'offence' that doesn't even qualify as an offence. Rockcodder (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am not stonewalling anything. The RfC process started by you is ongoing. It should be allowed to run its course without any further disruptions by you such as this [2]. Apart from me, User:AlexEng also warned your about WP:ASPERSIONS. So this should be a time for you to introspect your conduct on that talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I spent some time writing a response to the query from Venkat TL addressed to me above, but unfortunately when I tried to save it I found I had been edit-conflicted by two further edits, above. Those edits made the message I posted somewhat less appropriate, but a further message addressing the new posts was again edit-conflicted. I repeat my advice to both of you to keep away from one another. I came here purely to answer a request for an administrator to help in connection with the concern "I am worried that the presence of these second warnings can lead to me being blocked from editing if any further warnings are posted in the future", and I restricted myself to answering that one concern, without getting involved in any of the other issues, and I should like to keep it that way, if possible. JBW (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

    @JBW, all right. Thank you for taking out the time to review the comments and reply. Venkat TL (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

    @JBW: Thank you. Rockcodder (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)